Imagine having a good idea for a mockumentary and then going nowhere with it. That is this movie: It's 30 minutes stretched and padded to three times the length it needed to be, ending at the point when, after a lot of buildup, something interesting should happen. At the end movie even brings up it's own inconsistencies, throws its hands up in the air and exlaims 'I don't know!'.
Reviews
31 Reviews
Pinky Malinky
(2018–2019)
This show is the wurst
8 January 2019
This is a horribly boring show about a talking sausage and his antics. Every joke falls flat and it is drawn in that overused 'B-Face + Sausage Mouth'-CalArts-style you see everywhere these days. Since the show's stick is, that the sausage is making YouTube videos, it is also 'filmed' in a 'documentary style' with shaking, zooming and re-focusing cameras, which makes the series even harder to watch. It is a mystery to me who the target audience is supposed to be. It's too boring for kids and too dumb for adults.
This episode is the best yet, but...
31 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I liked this episode more than any that came before it. Especially the character of Harry Mudd stole everyone the show and is now the single most entertaining person in the entire series. It was also nice to see some real character development for Michael and Ash. It was an entertaining watch, but...
...this should have been Lieutenant Staments episode, since he was the only one who noticed the time loop. Instead he is relegated to a side character, who just feeds Burnham information about what is happening. Why did Staments told Michael about the time loop and didn't go directly to Captain Lorca? Because he bumped into her?
This could have been a truly fantastic episode, but this show has to forcefully push Michael into the focus of every story. This causes the biggest flaw with this episode. Why haven't we seen Staments dealing with time repeating, but instead had to follow Burnham whose actions and experiences became moot each time the time loop reset?
...this should have been Lieutenant Staments episode, since he was the only one who noticed the time loop. Instead he is relegated to a side character, who just feeds Burnham information about what is happening. Why did Staments told Michael about the time loop and didn't go directly to Captain Lorca? Because he bumped into her?
This could have been a truly fantastic episode, but this show has to forcefully push Michael into the focus of every story. This causes the biggest flaw with this episode. Why haven't we seen Staments dealing with time repeating, but instead had to follow Burnham whose actions and experiences became moot each time the time loop reset?
I think I figured it out
23 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is less a review of this episode and more a review of the entire show so far.
The biggest problem 'Star Trek: Discovery' has is, that it feels like the overarching plot idea could've been really good, but the every episode is badly executed. It's like a story that spread by people telling it to each other, and everyone who told it added something of their own, exaggerated certain plot-points to add more action, which inevitably caused plot holes or characters acting unreasonable for the sake of 'more action'.
For instance, there is no reason why the Vulcan suicide bomber from the "Logic Extremists" (there's a oxymoron for you) couldn't just have tried to shoot Sarek in the back and then set the autopilot of the ship to "fly into the next sun". Instead he had to blow himself up in an "Iron Man 3"-fashion for some reason.
The true problem: But for me the real penny dropped when Michael was in the mind of Sarek. This entire story was never supposed to be Michael's, it is SPOCK's story. This is the reason why it is a pre- quel to the old series, this is the reason why Michael is "the only human that ever graduated from the Vulcan Science Academy".
Everything Michael is supposed to struggle with, her Vulcan upbringing and her human emotions would work so much better, if her character was replaced by a pre-Enterprise Spock, a younger Spock, who is heavily torn between his human and his Vulcan side.
I believe this story, has been rewritten over and over again, on the one hand to add needless action and conflict for the sake of adding conflict, and this story has been rewritten because they replaced Spock with Michael.
Despite this the writers are trying to keep the overall course of the original plot. And that is the reason why 'Star Trek: Discovery' feels like a couple of pieces and scenes that don't seem to fit properly together, with people reacting in irrational ways to advance it.
The biggest problem 'Star Trek: Discovery' has is, that it feels like the overarching plot idea could've been really good, but the every episode is badly executed. It's like a story that spread by people telling it to each other, and everyone who told it added something of their own, exaggerated certain plot-points to add more action, which inevitably caused plot holes or characters acting unreasonable for the sake of 'more action'.
For instance, there is no reason why the Vulcan suicide bomber from the "Logic Extremists" (there's a oxymoron for you) couldn't just have tried to shoot Sarek in the back and then set the autopilot of the ship to "fly into the next sun". Instead he had to blow himself up in an "Iron Man 3"-fashion for some reason.
The true problem: But for me the real penny dropped when Michael was in the mind of Sarek. This entire story was never supposed to be Michael's, it is SPOCK's story. This is the reason why it is a pre- quel to the old series, this is the reason why Michael is "the only human that ever graduated from the Vulcan Science Academy".
Everything Michael is supposed to struggle with, her Vulcan upbringing and her human emotions would work so much better, if her character was replaced by a pre-Enterprise Spock, a younger Spock, who is heavily torn between his human and his Vulcan side.
I believe this story, has been rewritten over and over again, on the one hand to add needless action and conflict for the sake of adding conflict, and this story has been rewritten because they replaced Spock with Michael.
Despite this the writers are trying to keep the overall course of the original plot. And that is the reason why 'Star Trek: Discovery' feels like a couple of pieces and scenes that don't seem to fit properly together, with people reacting in irrational ways to advance it.
I can't even
9 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Characters
While the third episode felt a little bit more promising, this one is a complete disaster in my eyes. At least Michael Burnham feels a bit more like an actual human being in this and less than a robot - yet she still is a rather unlikable character. I am not sure what her character is supposed to be, but 'Human with a Vulcan upbringing' it is not. The rest of the Discovery's crew is there to gravitate around Michael and the Captain. The latter of whom I am not sure what kind of character they are aiming for, apart from 'shady'. Strangely the only thing that got me somewhat invested was B-Plot with the Klingons. At least some form of a character arc happened there and "two misfits trying to reunite a broken empire under the example of a misguided martyr" sounds light years more interesting than the A-plot.
Dialogue
The dialogue feels strange - again. Characters still seem to want to one-up themselves when it comes to say something awesome, funny or clever. This makes entire conversations feel unnatural, as if everyone wants desperately to have the last word.
Here and there a character says some "emotional words of wisdom", as if the writers hoped that this would give the show some philosophical gravitas. It doesn't and completely failed the mark with me. Often times lines like "These are some of the deadliest weapons in the galaxy." made me roll my eyes and I asked myself, if lines like this were written for a trailer in mind.
They even name-dropped Elon Musk as 'great inventor' like "the Wright Brothers" and "Zefram Cochrane" and also have a throwaway line about a character named "Zaphod" ("Zaphod Beeblebrox", is a character from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy") having died. Not only are these lines not funny, this is cringe-worthy, fan- fiction-level writing, ripping the viewer directly out of the action and making them ask themselves, if the character just really said that.
Especially giving a character, who died horribly due to Klingon bombardment, the same name like a character from a world-famous series of comedy novels and trying to make some emotional impact with that, has to be the epitome of "being tone-deaf".
Plot
The plot is horrible, what doesn't feel nonsensical or plot-hole ridden, seems to be cliché. I got the impression that the entire universe seems to stop unless the main-characters are around. Especially with the Klingon sub-plot this was obvious.
After the battle in the first two episodes, the Klingons had to repair their flagship and were stuck at the site of the battle for six months. They could repair their warp drive with parts from the USS Shenzhou, but their new leader refused to do that, because that would 'not be right'. Six months! In this time they neither called for help, nor encountered another Klingon, Federation or any other species' ship trying to salvage the wrecks floating in space. Also, the Klingons' ship has the only cloaking device currently available, so there is really enough reason to go and check them out - for both sides.
The main plot is weak. The 'plot twist' most viewers figured out in the previous episode, but probably dismissed it as 'too obvious', is presented as some sort of clever revelation. The 'mystery', that the Monster was the reason why the other science vessel could jump longer distances with their Spore Drive, could have been solved by the Assistance Warp Coil Scrubber of any Enterprise, taking a sharp look at an unfinished report about the entire encounter. Every further piece of this already obvious puzzle presented just caused me another eye- roll.
Several developments in this 'plot' are exclusively driven by the idiotic and unreal behavior of the characters. This is best presented, as the Chief Security Officer kills herself by letting the monster from the previous episode out of containment, so she can cut off a piece of it. The idea behind that is that Burnham can do more 'science' with that piece, which then might somehow create some sort of bio-weapon from the data she gathers. There isn't even any form of time pressure behind that decision, the chief of security just decides that it is a good idea to face a monster with a rifle and a dagger, that killed an entire ship full of Federation Officers and Klingons without taking a scratch.
The final act is also cringe-worthy. The Klingons attack a mining colony, that delivers 40% of the fuel for the entire Starfleet. This is also the reason why the captain of the Discovery tries to get their drive going, so they can jump there immediately. They finally manage to jump there, with help of the monster, destroy the three to four Klingon ships in a surprise attack and then jump away.
Here are the problems with that: Why does the Federation has a single colony producing 40% of their fuel? Why wasn't there an entire armada guarding it, if it is such an important, strategic location? Even if this mining outpost was so badly defended, that only three Klingon ships can break through, why can a science vessel like the Discovery destroy these four Klingon ships so easily? Why does Command endanger the science vessel, that has their last copy of a super-secret FTL-Drive on board?
This is the worst episode by now. Even if this entire series is set in the mirror universe or that the writers try to be smart by pulling "yes, they were the real bad guys all along" it can't be saved with this writing.
While the third episode felt a little bit more promising, this one is a complete disaster in my eyes. At least Michael Burnham feels a bit more like an actual human being in this and less than a robot - yet she still is a rather unlikable character. I am not sure what her character is supposed to be, but 'Human with a Vulcan upbringing' it is not. The rest of the Discovery's crew is there to gravitate around Michael and the Captain. The latter of whom I am not sure what kind of character they are aiming for, apart from 'shady'. Strangely the only thing that got me somewhat invested was B-Plot with the Klingons. At least some form of a character arc happened there and "two misfits trying to reunite a broken empire under the example of a misguided martyr" sounds light years more interesting than the A-plot.
Dialogue
The dialogue feels strange - again. Characters still seem to want to one-up themselves when it comes to say something awesome, funny or clever. This makes entire conversations feel unnatural, as if everyone wants desperately to have the last word.
Here and there a character says some "emotional words of wisdom", as if the writers hoped that this would give the show some philosophical gravitas. It doesn't and completely failed the mark with me. Often times lines like "These are some of the deadliest weapons in the galaxy." made me roll my eyes and I asked myself, if lines like this were written for a trailer in mind.
They even name-dropped Elon Musk as 'great inventor' like "the Wright Brothers" and "Zefram Cochrane" and also have a throwaway line about a character named "Zaphod" ("Zaphod Beeblebrox", is a character from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy") having died. Not only are these lines not funny, this is cringe-worthy, fan- fiction-level writing, ripping the viewer directly out of the action and making them ask themselves, if the character just really said that.
Especially giving a character, who died horribly due to Klingon bombardment, the same name like a character from a world-famous series of comedy novels and trying to make some emotional impact with that, has to be the epitome of "being tone-deaf".
Plot
The plot is horrible, what doesn't feel nonsensical or plot-hole ridden, seems to be cliché. I got the impression that the entire universe seems to stop unless the main-characters are around. Especially with the Klingon sub-plot this was obvious.
- The Klingon Plot
After the battle in the first two episodes, the Klingons had to repair their flagship and were stuck at the site of the battle for six months. They could repair their warp drive with parts from the USS Shenzhou, but their new leader refused to do that, because that would 'not be right'. Six months! In this time they neither called for help, nor encountered another Klingon, Federation or any other species' ship trying to salvage the wrecks floating in space. Also, the Klingons' ship has the only cloaking device currently available, so there is really enough reason to go and check them out - for both sides.
- The Spacemonster-Spore-Drive
The main plot is weak. The 'plot twist' most viewers figured out in the previous episode, but probably dismissed it as 'too obvious', is presented as some sort of clever revelation. The 'mystery', that the Monster was the reason why the other science vessel could jump longer distances with their Spore Drive, could have been solved by the Assistance Warp Coil Scrubber of any Enterprise, taking a sharp look at an unfinished report about the entire encounter. Every further piece of this already obvious puzzle presented just caused me another eye- roll.
Several developments in this 'plot' are exclusively driven by the idiotic and unreal behavior of the characters. This is best presented, as the Chief Security Officer kills herself by letting the monster from the previous episode out of containment, so she can cut off a piece of it. The idea behind that is that Burnham can do more 'science' with that piece, which then might somehow create some sort of bio-weapon from the data she gathers. There isn't even any form of time pressure behind that decision, the chief of security just decides that it is a good idea to face a monster with a rifle and a dagger, that killed an entire ship full of Federation Officers and Klingons without taking a scratch.
- The Mining Colony
The final act is also cringe-worthy. The Klingons attack a mining colony, that delivers 40% of the fuel for the entire Starfleet. This is also the reason why the captain of the Discovery tries to get their drive going, so they can jump there immediately. They finally manage to jump there, with help of the monster, destroy the three to four Klingon ships in a surprise attack and then jump away.
Here are the problems with that: Why does the Federation has a single colony producing 40% of their fuel? Why wasn't there an entire armada guarding it, if it is such an important, strategic location? Even if this mining outpost was so badly defended, that only three Klingon ships can break through, why can a science vessel like the Discovery destroy these four Klingon ships so easily? Why does Command endanger the science vessel, that has their last copy of a super-secret FTL-Drive on board?
This is the worst episode by now. Even if this entire series is set in the mirror universe or that the writers try to be smart by pulling "yes, they were the real bad guys all along" it can't be saved with this writing.
It's biggest flaw that it is named "Star Trek"
3 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It is a mystery to me why the show hasn't started with this episode. Literally everything the viewer needs to know about Michael's fall from grace is explained. With a few alterations this would have been a much better starting point for the series. I would even recommend to skip the first two episodes and start with this one.
There is a lot more of characterization and meaningful interaction between the characters going on and the dialogue -although a bit painful at sometimes- feels like it could have been written by a human being this time.
Michael herself still is pretty much a Mary-Sue, with everyone else around her being a far more interesting character than she is, but it isn't as eye-roll inducing as in the pilot episodes. The story actually interested me, even if it didn't bother with explaining what exactly happened on 'that other ship' and why exactly there was a monster around. (But I hope this might be explained in a later episode.)
However, this episode lost me entirely as the explanation came up, what the purpose of 'Ominous Science Project X' is: Near instantaneous galactic travel by space spores. This has nothing to do with science-fiction, but is science-fantasy and doesn't even remotely fit in the Star Trek universe people know and love.
The writers seem to know how they have to write a flashy SciFi show, but have the same problem every bad SciFi-writer has: They don't completely understand the ramifications of a newly introduced technology. If you are indeed able to blink a person to any planet system you want to, just teleport one big bomb after another to the Klingon home-world of Qo'Nos and wait until the Klingons surrender or can't keep up the war effort.
This show would work 100 times better, if it wasn't branded as Star Trek. If it wasn't Star Trek, every problem I have with it could be shrugged of as "growing pains" of a show that still tries to figure out what it is.
There is a lot more of characterization and meaningful interaction between the characters going on and the dialogue -although a bit painful at sometimes- feels like it could have been written by a human being this time.
Michael herself still is pretty much a Mary-Sue, with everyone else around her being a far more interesting character than she is, but it isn't as eye-roll inducing as in the pilot episodes. The story actually interested me, even if it didn't bother with explaining what exactly happened on 'that other ship' and why exactly there was a monster around. (But I hope this might be explained in a later episode.)
However, this episode lost me entirely as the explanation came up, what the purpose of 'Ominous Science Project X' is: Near instantaneous galactic travel by space spores. This has nothing to do with science-fiction, but is science-fantasy and doesn't even remotely fit in the Star Trek universe people know and love.
The writers seem to know how they have to write a flashy SciFi show, but have the same problem every bad SciFi-writer has: They don't completely understand the ramifications of a newly introduced technology. If you are indeed able to blink a person to any planet system you want to, just teleport one big bomb after another to the Klingon home-world of Qo'Nos and wait until the Klingons surrender or can't keep up the war effort.
This show would work 100 times better, if it wasn't branded as Star Trek. If it wasn't Star Trek, every problem I have with it could be shrugged of as "growing pains" of a show that still tries to figure out what it is.
Star Trek: Discovery
(2017–2024)
To Boldy Go Where No Trekkie Wanted It To Go
26 September 2017
This covers the first two episodes only:
This is the most beautiful train wreck I have ever seen... but it still is a train wreck.
If you can get over an overuse of dutch angles, lens flares and don't expect much science in your fiction, it is a nice romp, but it isn't surely what most fans of the previous shows want. If I had to guess, this was originally intended as a TV show in the J. J. Abrams universe - it just feels like it. That being said, the visuals are stunningly beautiful and look like they belong in a movie. Star Trek: Discovery is downright the most amazing looking show I have seen. I don't even mind if the Klingons look different or that the aesthetics have changed.
However, apart from 'looking good' this series has little to offer. There isn't much story to find here, just one or two plot points happening intermingled with a series of flashbacks, half-way decent action scenes and CGI. It's something that feels like it would have been relegated to a pre-title scene in any other show. The little bits of plot Star Trek: Discovery has often times don't make much sense (or things outright 'shouldn't work that way') and most scenes seems to be constructed to show off how 'awesome' the main character (and the captain) is.
If one would tell me that the entire thing started out as a moderately entertaining fan-fiction - complete with Mary Sue-self- insert - I wouldn't be surprised. I couldn't connect with any of the characters, not Michael, not the Captain, not the Klingon Warchief. All other characters have already faded away from my memory - except Lt. Saru... and the "Daftpunkian".
( Seriously, what was that? I am more interested in what that robot in the background was, than how the story continues. )
However, I really hope this show improves as it goes on.
This is the most beautiful train wreck I have ever seen... but it still is a train wreck.
If you can get over an overuse of dutch angles, lens flares and don't expect much science in your fiction, it is a nice romp, but it isn't surely what most fans of the previous shows want. If I had to guess, this was originally intended as a TV show in the J. J. Abrams universe - it just feels like it. That being said, the visuals are stunningly beautiful and look like they belong in a movie. Star Trek: Discovery is downright the most amazing looking show I have seen. I don't even mind if the Klingons look different or that the aesthetics have changed.
However, apart from 'looking good' this series has little to offer. There isn't much story to find here, just one or two plot points happening intermingled with a series of flashbacks, half-way decent action scenes and CGI. It's something that feels like it would have been relegated to a pre-title scene in any other show. The little bits of plot Star Trek: Discovery has often times don't make much sense (or things outright 'shouldn't work that way') and most scenes seems to be constructed to show off how 'awesome' the main character (and the captain) is.
If one would tell me that the entire thing started out as a moderately entertaining fan-fiction - complete with Mary Sue-self- insert - I wouldn't be surprised. I couldn't connect with any of the characters, not Michael, not the Captain, not the Klingon Warchief. All other characters have already faded away from my memory - except Lt. Saru... and the "Daftpunkian".
( Seriously, what was that? I am more interested in what that robot in the background was, than how the story continues. )
However, I really hope this show improves as it goes on.
The Mist
(2017)
Boring, forgettable and bland.
11 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
(Episodes 1 to 4)
There is no story here, there are no interesting characters.
This series is utterly forgettable, so forgettable in fact that even after four episodes I find it hard to remember any of the characters' names. A problem amplified by the fact that there are too many characters to begin with. The 'plot' jumps between three groups with several characters each, who all have the same problem, being stuck inside, making it even harder to connect with the already bland, one-note characters.
Every episode seems to follow the same thin line of events: People stuck are inside a building, too afraid to go outside and then something horrible happens that kills one or two characters off - and that's it.
The fact that even by the middle of the fourth episode not a single monster has appeared is downright insulting to the viewer. All you see up to that point are insects and the few 'bigger' special effects, who were utilized so haphazardly they actually broke the little bit of 'suspension of disbelief' I had to offer.
Then, when they actually show a creature, it is (I kid you not) a smoke monster. Fittingly this series feels like a bad copy of "Lost". Nothing in this series seems to have any rhyme or reason to it. The writers seemed to have made up stuff as they went along, while they filled the rest of the script with painfully boring interlude.
The characters are bland and behave like idiots - except the two potheads who actually have a good idea, but are the only ones portrait as idiots.
Translate the German word "Mist" into English and you got what this series is.
There is no story here, there are no interesting characters.
This series is utterly forgettable, so forgettable in fact that even after four episodes I find it hard to remember any of the characters' names. A problem amplified by the fact that there are too many characters to begin with. The 'plot' jumps between three groups with several characters each, who all have the same problem, being stuck inside, making it even harder to connect with the already bland, one-note characters.
Every episode seems to follow the same thin line of events: People stuck are inside a building, too afraid to go outside and then something horrible happens that kills one or two characters off - and that's it.
The fact that even by the middle of the fourth episode not a single monster has appeared is downright insulting to the viewer. All you see up to that point are insects and the few 'bigger' special effects, who were utilized so haphazardly they actually broke the little bit of 'suspension of disbelief' I had to offer.
Then, when they actually show a creature, it is (I kid you not) a smoke monster. Fittingly this series feels like a bad copy of "Lost". Nothing in this series seems to have any rhyme or reason to it. The writers seemed to have made up stuff as they went along, while they filled the rest of the script with painfully boring interlude.
The characters are bland and behave like idiots - except the two potheads who actually have a good idea, but are the only ones portrait as idiots.
Translate the German word "Mist" into English and you got what this series is.
The Void
(I) (2016)
It is OK
15 April 2017
Do you want a throwback at the Horror from the 80s and 90s? Did you like all of John Carpenter's Apocalypse trilogy? Then you'll like this one.
No, it is not at good as any of those classics, but it is 'that kind of film' and has the feel of a movie that should have been made over 25 years ago. It's pretty much seems to be "that one 80s-horror movie you always missed out on".
The script is weak from start to finish (nearly non-existent), the acting is OK, the direction and editing are lacking at some points, but the practical effects are nice to look at.
No, it is not at good as any of those classics, but it is 'that kind of film' and has the feel of a movie that should have been made over 25 years ago. It's pretty much seems to be "that one 80s-horror movie you always missed out on".
The script is weak from start to finish (nearly non-existent), the acting is OK, the direction and editing are lacking at some points, but the practical effects are nice to look at.
Hell and Back
(2015)
A waste of perfectly good stop motion animation and voice acting
10 August 2016
It is a mystery to me how anyone could have looked at this script, then thought it might be a good idea to hire good voice actors and go through the painstakingly process of creating a stop-motion animation. The result is the cinematic equivalent of building a house on sand.
Only one joke in the entire movie made me laugh. Every other joke was some form of gross-out-joke, sexual joke or 'it is funny because they swear' kind of joke. Not that I have trouble with humor that does this, but not only the entire movie is based on that kinds of jokes, they are also written so poorly. It feels like this script was coughed up by a pair of stoned film students as a side project. There isn't even really a story to speak of, just a series of loosely connected scenes that have a vague resemblance of a plot.
The movie actually gets better for a while, if you set your internal commentary to those two film students writing their script:
"Dude... and the the devil is like... putting then into the trap door, because his hot angel girlfriend he tries to impress is coming to visit him... and then the angel says she is looking for those dudes, but they are already gone and as he opens the trap door again, there is all sorts of funny stuff that comes back up..."
Only one joke in the entire movie made me laugh. Every other joke was some form of gross-out-joke, sexual joke or 'it is funny because they swear' kind of joke. Not that I have trouble with humor that does this, but not only the entire movie is based on that kinds of jokes, they are also written so poorly. It feels like this script was coughed up by a pair of stoned film students as a side project. There isn't even really a story to speak of, just a series of loosely connected scenes that have a vague resemblance of a plot.
The movie actually gets better for a while, if you set your internal commentary to those two film students writing their script:
"Dude... and the the devil is like... putting then into the trap door, because his hot angel girlfriend he tries to impress is coming to visit him... and then the angel says she is looking for those dudes, but they are already gone and as he opens the trap door again, there is all sorts of funny stuff that comes back up..."
The Interview
(II) (2014)
Not bad, but over-hyped.
28 December 2014
I must say, that I did not let myself get hyped by all the buzz around the movie, instead I expected a bad movie, but people wanted to see it and I tagged along.
To my surprise it wasn't that bad: "The Interview" has its lengths, some gags fall flat, others worked for me. I would have really appreciated a bit more action to and James Francos character was too much of a idiot, even for the premise of this movie.
It also might feel a bit predicable to some people, since you will notice several instances of Chekhov's Gun, before they are used in the third act. However, I liked the way everything came together in the third act, anyway. "The Interview" is as much a satire about the media and media-people as "This is the End" was making fun of Hollywood- Celebrities.
To my surprise it wasn't that bad: "The Interview" has its lengths, some gags fall flat, others worked for me. I would have really appreciated a bit more action to and James Francos character was too much of a idiot, even for the premise of this movie.
It also might feel a bit predicable to some people, since you will notice several instances of Chekhov's Gun, before they are used in the third act. However, I liked the way everything came together in the third act, anyway. "The Interview" is as much a satire about the media and media-people as "This is the End" was making fun of Hollywood- Celebrities.
The Babadook
(2014)
Probably the only Horror worth seeing in 2014 ....
17 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
... and the best to come from kickstarter, yet.
I was surprised by this movie. I heard that 'The Babadook' was worth a look, but I am weary when it comes to horror-movie recommendations these days.
'The Babadook' follows the story of a single mother overwhelmed by her life. She has an exhaustive job, a problematic child and not yet handled the death of her husband. One day her overly-imaginative son finds a rather unsettling children's book, featuring a bogeyman called 'The Babadook'. Soon after that strange events start to occur.
The movie blurs the lines between horror and psychological thriller/drama. For me it is open to interpretation if the Babadook is real, or if it is 'just' the mother loosing grip with reality and spiraling down into schizophrenia. In both cases the movie shines especially because of the fantastic performance of the lead, Essie Davis, which makes you fear for her character, even as her condition gets worse and worse.
The movie deviates refreshingly from horror formula: It completely forgoes worn out jump scare noises, builds tension through atmosphere and focuses on the characters and how the events impact on the rest of their lives (how it should be).
I was surprised by this movie. I heard that 'The Babadook' was worth a look, but I am weary when it comes to horror-movie recommendations these days.
'The Babadook' follows the story of a single mother overwhelmed by her life. She has an exhaustive job, a problematic child and not yet handled the death of her husband. One day her overly-imaginative son finds a rather unsettling children's book, featuring a bogeyman called 'The Babadook'. Soon after that strange events start to occur.
The movie blurs the lines between horror and psychological thriller/drama. For me it is open to interpretation if the Babadook is real, or if it is 'just' the mother loosing grip with reality and spiraling down into schizophrenia. In both cases the movie shines especially because of the fantastic performance of the lead, Essie Davis, which makes you fear for her character, even as her condition gets worse and worse.
The movie deviates refreshingly from horror formula: It completely forgoes worn out jump scare noises, builds tension through atmosphere and focuses on the characters and how the events impact on the rest of their lives (how it should be).
Better than the novel. And believe me that doesn't say much...
27 October 2014
The general consensus is, that you can't translate a book into a movie, without doing some major cuts to the source material... except maybe you have Peter Jackson and a couple hundred million dollar at your disposal, then you might get just close enough to appease most of the fans.
I have read the novel "The City of Bones" a few months back, so I am able say how both incarnations of this story deviate from each other. If you now expect the old "the novel is better"-spiel, then you are wrong. The book is a boring, utterly predicable and badly written mess, with the main character being as proactive as a rusty doorknob. It even made me question my principle to always finish what I start reading... but you are not here for a book-review.
Interestingly enough, translating "City of Bones" into a movie has resulted in turning the unwritten laws of movie-adaptions upside down: The cuts and changes that were applied to the movie version, actually benefit the story and I am fully aware how strange this must sound. Furthermore, trimming down the dialogue has made the characters more bearable (or less insufferable). What was long and boring in the book, has transformed to (just) a rushed sequence of scenes, that push the plot forward. The movie is trying to hurry from scene to scene, in order to hit all important bits from the book. This also causes the problem, that many scene-transitions feel disjointed:
"We are in scene A! Now we need to get to scene B! Let us show the reason why we have to go from A to B, either at the very end of scene A or deliver exposition at the beginning of scene B."
...which isn't that much of a problem, because it at least spares you the 'bumbling around' the characters do in the book. The viewer has also much less time to notice the fivehundred-or-so of plot-holes in this story. However, things that had been at least 'somewhat established' in the book, now come right out of nowhere (and sometimes lead nowhere), other plot-points feel 'wrong' in a different way.
Speaking of 'wrong', even if you don't get the least bit invested in this movies love-triangle, I guarantee you, that you will feel the urge to rub your brain clean, when this sub-plot concludes in the end. ( This particular bit is even WORSE in the book, since there you could guess 'the big plot twist' half-way through the book. )
Acting is passable. CGI is a mixed bag. Characters are not memorable at all -except maybe Simon - just like in the book. If you think too hard about it, the plot barely makes any sense - except you assume the main-villain, did not even met the requirements for the position as 'Cobra Commander' - just like in the book. The action is hard to follow, just like in the book.The dialogue is more or less a vessel for exposition, just like in the book. The plot-twits will either make you laugh, cringe or quoting a certain space opera, just like in the book. But at least the main-protagonist feels a bit more proactive.
And NO, the book doesn't give you a explanation, why it is called "City of Bones", either.
Conclusion: Yet another adaption of a YA novel, which wasn't even readable to begin with.
I have read the novel "The City of Bones" a few months back, so I am able say how both incarnations of this story deviate from each other. If you now expect the old "the novel is better"-spiel, then you are wrong. The book is a boring, utterly predicable and badly written mess, with the main character being as proactive as a rusty doorknob. It even made me question my principle to always finish what I start reading... but you are not here for a book-review.
Interestingly enough, translating "City of Bones" into a movie has resulted in turning the unwritten laws of movie-adaptions upside down: The cuts and changes that were applied to the movie version, actually benefit the story and I am fully aware how strange this must sound. Furthermore, trimming down the dialogue has made the characters more bearable (or less insufferable). What was long and boring in the book, has transformed to (just) a rushed sequence of scenes, that push the plot forward. The movie is trying to hurry from scene to scene, in order to hit all important bits from the book. This also causes the problem, that many scene-transitions feel disjointed:
"We are in scene A! Now we need to get to scene B! Let us show the reason why we have to go from A to B, either at the very end of scene A or deliver exposition at the beginning of scene B."
...which isn't that much of a problem, because it at least spares you the 'bumbling around' the characters do in the book. The viewer has also much less time to notice the fivehundred-or-so of plot-holes in this story. However, things that had been at least 'somewhat established' in the book, now come right out of nowhere (and sometimes lead nowhere), other plot-points feel 'wrong' in a different way.
Speaking of 'wrong', even if you don't get the least bit invested in this movies love-triangle, I guarantee you, that you will feel the urge to rub your brain clean, when this sub-plot concludes in the end. ( This particular bit is even WORSE in the book, since there you could guess 'the big plot twist' half-way through the book. )
Acting is passable. CGI is a mixed bag. Characters are not memorable at all -except maybe Simon - just like in the book. If you think too hard about it, the plot barely makes any sense - except you assume the main-villain, did not even met the requirements for the position as 'Cobra Commander' - just like in the book. The action is hard to follow, just like in the book.The dialogue is more or less a vessel for exposition, just like in the book. The plot-twits will either make you laugh, cringe or quoting a certain space opera, just like in the book. But at least the main-protagonist feels a bit more proactive.
And NO, the book doesn't give you a explanation, why it is called "City of Bones", either.
Conclusion: Yet another adaption of a YA novel, which wasn't even readable to begin with.
An episode that feels like an uneventful stroll through the woods...
25 October 2014
As much I want to like the 12th doctor, Capaldis entire season has been a massive up and down. Some episodes like "Flatline" are very good, while others descend to lows fans know from episodes like "Love and Monsters" or "Fear Her". Sadly "In the Forest of the Night" belongs to this bottom-category.
The story, although the premise itself had potential, offers nothing. There is no real plot, no real stakes and no real action except 'people being not-quite-lost in the forest, not sure what has happened'. The entire script could have been cut down to a fraction of its runtime and nothing would have been lost. This entire episode felt to me highly superfluous and like a waste of time.
The 12th Doctor handling British pupils got a chuckle or two out of me, but the entire rest of this episode was a long, boring tedium.
The story, although the premise itself had potential, offers nothing. There is no real plot, no real stakes and no real action except 'people being not-quite-lost in the forest, not sure what has happened'. The entire script could have been cut down to a fraction of its runtime and nothing would have been lost. This entire episode felt to me highly superfluous and like a waste of time.
The 12th Doctor handling British pupils got a chuckle or two out of me, but the entire rest of this episode was a long, boring tedium.
Insidious: Chapter 2
(2013)
A wonderful breakdown of modern horror...
2 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
"Insidious – Chapter 2" takes place right after the events of the first movie. In order to bring the audience up to speed, it opens up with 15 minutes of purposely stilted exposition. But not only those first minutes are a true gem of writing! Dialogues throughout the movie will fascinate every viewer, in how far removed they are from actual human speech and emotion. To emphasize this disconnection from the human condition, all lines are delivered by a group of wooden mannequins cleverly disguised as actors. Although this has been a bold choice by the director, the expression known as 'dull surprise' is always spot on.
The film also raises many questions, it boldly does not answer: Why is a suspected murderer not in custody? Why does a wife and mother, who must know that her husband is possessed by a ghost, does not act on this knowledge? How do the two paranormal investigators know, that a knife was just pulled? And does a knife really make a 'swing' sound, although the one who pulls it just held it behind his back?
This film uses all the horror-film tropes you love and can't get enough of, like:
1) The ghost in the mirror!
2) The false 'standing behind the door' reveal!
3) Baby in danger!
4) Scary children!
5) Scary nursery rhymes!
6) A abandoned hospital/mental institution!
7) Ominous pointing.
8) Ghosts ominous pointing.
9) Ghosts ominous pointing white screaming and/or cackling.
10) The "...you cannot have seen him, he just died this morning." Scene!
11) At least five instances of a noisy, scary and inexplicably moving toy!
12) Ghosts wearing antiqued clothes while sitting with their back to the camera!
13) The self-unscrewing screw!
14) Explaining the obvious!
15) The murderous husband bashing through a locked door! (As seen in "The Shining")
16) The son disguised as his mother, murdering people! (As seen in "Psycho")
17) Dissolving walls! (As seen in "Silent Hill")
18) An ending that sets up a third installment!
This movie also takes a break from well-timed, well-placed, non-predicable and terrifying jump-scares. No longer will your heart-rate be raised by a sudden shock, that impairs your movie-experience! No, this film fires so many Jump-scare-'duds' and loud noises at the viewer, that after the first third of its runtime you won't care anymore .
And if you expect the 'loud noises' to match up with the pictures you see on the screen, you will be pleasantly surprised, because "Insidious - Chapter 2" breaks new ground! These noises always come a bit too late, which gives you the opportunity to be prepared and not startled by the sudden increase in volume.
Especially noteworthy is the one scene, where the baby-bed is revealed to be empty. A dramatic zoom, a loud noise and then BANG!: The instant reveal, that the baby just had fallen out of the bed. Scenes like this are a well thought out statement, how horror movies are desperately fishing for cheap scares.
But wait there is more!
Like the well-beloved "weak wrist" camera-work, when a scene is meant to be truly intense! A blatant and artistic disregard for how tin can telephones are supposed to work! A time-travel story! Time traveling ghosts! Where else, outside of Doctor Who, can you find something like this?
I warn you! This film is a movie you should not watch alone, because all the quips and witty remarks you will inadvertently come up with, would be otherwise lost to the silence.
---
The Insidious Drinking Game:
"Fake" Jump-Scare (x1)
Scary Toy (x1)
Jump-Scare Sound-Mismatch (x1)
Tin Can Phones don't work that way (x2)
Drink one each time you think: "....sure this isn't Christian Slater?"
The film also raises many questions, it boldly does not answer: Why is a suspected murderer not in custody? Why does a wife and mother, who must know that her husband is possessed by a ghost, does not act on this knowledge? How do the two paranormal investigators know, that a knife was just pulled? And does a knife really make a 'swing' sound, although the one who pulls it just held it behind his back?
This film uses all the horror-film tropes you love and can't get enough of, like:
1) The ghost in the mirror!
2) The false 'standing behind the door' reveal!
3) Baby in danger!
4) Scary children!
5) Scary nursery rhymes!
6) A abandoned hospital/mental institution!
7) Ominous pointing.
8) Ghosts ominous pointing.
9) Ghosts ominous pointing white screaming and/or cackling.
10) The "...you cannot have seen him, he just died this morning." Scene!
11) At least five instances of a noisy, scary and inexplicably moving toy!
12) Ghosts wearing antiqued clothes while sitting with their back to the camera!
13) The self-unscrewing screw!
14) Explaining the obvious!
15) The murderous husband bashing through a locked door! (As seen in "The Shining")
16) The son disguised as his mother, murdering people! (As seen in "Psycho")
17) Dissolving walls! (As seen in "Silent Hill")
18) An ending that sets up a third installment!
This movie also takes a break from well-timed, well-placed, non-predicable and terrifying jump-scares. No longer will your heart-rate be raised by a sudden shock, that impairs your movie-experience! No, this film fires so many Jump-scare-'duds' and loud noises at the viewer, that after the first third of its runtime you won't care anymore .
And if you expect the 'loud noises' to match up with the pictures you see on the screen, you will be pleasantly surprised, because "Insidious - Chapter 2" breaks new ground! These noises always come a bit too late, which gives you the opportunity to be prepared and not startled by the sudden increase in volume.
Especially noteworthy is the one scene, where the baby-bed is revealed to be empty. A dramatic zoom, a loud noise and then BANG!: The instant reveal, that the baby just had fallen out of the bed. Scenes like this are a well thought out statement, how horror movies are desperately fishing for cheap scares.
But wait there is more!
Like the well-beloved "weak wrist" camera-work, when a scene is meant to be truly intense! A blatant and artistic disregard for how tin can telephones are supposed to work! A time-travel story! Time traveling ghosts! Where else, outside of Doctor Who, can you find something like this?
I warn you! This film is a movie you should not watch alone, because all the quips and witty remarks you will inadvertently come up with, would be otherwise lost to the silence.
---
The Insidious Drinking Game:
"Fake" Jump-Scare (x1)
Scary Toy (x1)
Jump-Scare Sound-Mismatch (x1)
Tin Can Phones don't work that way (x2)
Drink one each time you think: "....sure this isn't Christian Slater?"
The Secret of Kells
(2009)
Beautiful Animation, thin story...
20 June 2014
This is one of the most beautiful animations I have _ever_ seen.
It is hard to describe what makes this such a wonderful watch. You will just have to see it for yourself. Just let me say that much: They tried to translate the celtic art-style into an modern animation and they had a fantastic success with it.
There is, however, one major flaw in this movie. Although the animation and everything else manages to outshine this problem greatly: The plot feels a bit thin, like the first few chapters of a book.
Don't get me wrong! If you manage to stretch out the first third of a book and make it that entertaining you did a fantastic job. But as the movie neared it's end, it skipped over several years in a short (yet beautiful) montage. I felt disappointed as I realized that the movie was nearing its end, because I really wanted the story to continue. I wanted to see those skipped years, or at least a 'To be continued...' on the screen... but the film ended shortly after that montage and it was clear that there wasn't going to be another one.
It is hard to describe what makes this such a wonderful watch. You will just have to see it for yourself. Just let me say that much: They tried to translate the celtic art-style into an modern animation and they had a fantastic success with it.
There is, however, one major flaw in this movie. Although the animation and everything else manages to outshine this problem greatly: The plot feels a bit thin, like the first few chapters of a book.
Don't get me wrong! If you manage to stretch out the first third of a book and make it that entertaining you did a fantastic job. But as the movie neared it's end, it skipped over several years in a short (yet beautiful) montage. I felt disappointed as I realized that the movie was nearing its end, because I really wanted the story to continue. I wanted to see those skipped years, or at least a 'To be continued...' on the screen... but the film ended shortly after that montage and it was clear that there wasn't going to be another one.
War of the Worlds: Goliath
(2012)
War of the Worlds: GI Joe vs. Art
17 April 2014
This movie is HARD to review, if anything it is a prime example of a 'mixed bag'.
At first the good stuff: The premise of the movie is downright genius. The design of the world (not the character design, later more on that) is wonderful and complaining whether it is steam- or diesel-punk is nitpicking. There are many ideas/designs, that made me downright jealous, why I did not come up with them. At some points I even wanted to point at the screen and say: "They put this historical character in this situation? Awesome!" or "Oh, look at this!", especially when it came to the creative background art. The opening-sequence is wonderful, too (the song accompanying is not). And finally, I enjoyed the action-scenes, despite all the issues the movie has.
It is a decent action-flick if you don't have too high expectations.
Having that said, here the bad things:
Animation: First and foremost, the animation of the characters is bad, 1980s-western-television-animation-bad. It is clunky and the characters convey less emotion, than the puppets from the Thunderbirds T.V.-Show. The phoned-in voice acting does not help either.
The bad animation attributes to some serious blending issues the film has. Especially the bad character animation does not go well with the rest of the film. WOTW Goliath feels like the teams of CGI-, classic animation and 'rest' did not communicate at all. CGI is passable.
The character design is poor. Many characters have the same stereotypical body-type repeated over and over again. You will also notice that some of the men apparently have their shirts directly painted on their skin.
Writing: Although there are some fun ideas in the movie, the writing is something between bland and bad. Many lines and actions stood out as stupid, forced or contrived. You know that you in for sub-par writing, when someone drops the line "As you know..." and then spills exposition to an audience that already knows these facts... an exposition, mind you, that was already perfectly conveyed to the viewer in the 10 minutes prior.
The movie devolves into "fight fight fight", with no real character-development after the point the martians have landed, but I don't complain about that – that was what I wanted to see after all. I would guess that this movies was originally planned as an OVA or series, but then got cut down to the length of a movie.
Direction: There is one thing that really ANNOYED me: In nearly every shot of this movie the camera is either panning, zooming in or out and/or tracking somewhere. Often this establishes something the audience has already seen before. This annoyed me so much so, I had to think at the 'slanted angles' from Battlefield Earth. I even assume that some people might even get motion sick while looking at it.
Conclusion: "Force the Guillermo del Toro to do his take on this."
At first the good stuff: The premise of the movie is downright genius. The design of the world (not the character design, later more on that) is wonderful and complaining whether it is steam- or diesel-punk is nitpicking. There are many ideas/designs, that made me downright jealous, why I did not come up with them. At some points I even wanted to point at the screen and say: "They put this historical character in this situation? Awesome!" or "Oh, look at this!", especially when it came to the creative background art. The opening-sequence is wonderful, too (the song accompanying is not). And finally, I enjoyed the action-scenes, despite all the issues the movie has.
It is a decent action-flick if you don't have too high expectations.
Having that said, here the bad things:
Animation: First and foremost, the animation of the characters is bad, 1980s-western-television-animation-bad. It is clunky and the characters convey less emotion, than the puppets from the Thunderbirds T.V.-Show. The phoned-in voice acting does not help either.
The bad animation attributes to some serious blending issues the film has. Especially the bad character animation does not go well with the rest of the film. WOTW Goliath feels like the teams of CGI-, classic animation and 'rest' did not communicate at all. CGI is passable.
The character design is poor. Many characters have the same stereotypical body-type repeated over and over again. You will also notice that some of the men apparently have their shirts directly painted on their skin.
Writing: Although there are some fun ideas in the movie, the writing is something between bland and bad. Many lines and actions stood out as stupid, forced or contrived. You know that you in for sub-par writing, when someone drops the line "As you know..." and then spills exposition to an audience that already knows these facts... an exposition, mind you, that was already perfectly conveyed to the viewer in the 10 minutes prior.
The movie devolves into "fight fight fight", with no real character-development after the point the martians have landed, but I don't complain about that – that was what I wanted to see after all. I would guess that this movies was originally planned as an OVA or series, but then got cut down to the length of a movie.
Direction: There is one thing that really ANNOYED me: In nearly every shot of this movie the camera is either panning, zooming in or out and/or tracking somewhere. Often this establishes something the audience has already seen before. This annoyed me so much so, I had to think at the 'slanted angles' from Battlefield Earth. I even assume that some people might even get motion sick while looking at it.
Conclusion: "Force the Guillermo del Toro to do his take on this."
Hemlock Grove
(2013–2015)
Plot-Development at the speed of snore
30 January 2014
(This review only covers the first season of the show:)
I think the biggest problem this series has, is the same many other mystery series have:
After a quick and interesting start and introduction of all important characters, the plot nearly stops and develops at a snails pace. I have not read the book this series was adapted from, but after watching all thirteen episodes of the first season, I had the impression, that a majority of the people involved in the writing and the directing process were hired to pad out the series. Dialogues were either drawn out too much, pointless or just plain bad. Scenes seemed most of the times too long and/or reflected on previous scenes in a way that nothing new was gained for the viewer. It was like the plot of the series moved at the slowest speed possible without crawling back where it came from. Half of the entire series could probably have ended on the cutting floor, without affecting the story at all.
Also the mythology of this series does not feel very developed. Intriguing the viewer with mystery might be what such a series needs to do, but (together with the slow plot) this made me look up information on an online wiki, in order to find out what exactly character X was supposed to be and how Y was supposed to work - with meager results. On that note, the series has a problem I call "mystery overload": The story does not answer its mysteries or gives only unsatisfying answers and keeps pushing out more questions. The result is, that Hemlock Grove feels like it came from the "Lost"-school of writing, leaving the viewer with the impression, that the writers just made up stuff as they went along, without having any idea where the plot should go.
Another problem I personally had, was that the two leads (the characters are supposed to be 16 to 17 years old) are cast too old and being portrait by two men that are clearly in their early to mid-twenties. But that is probably more of a personal nitpick. The acting was good on a technical level, but there is only so much you can do with this script. I had a problem to connect with main- or side-characters, because neither developed much after initial establishment. Apart from that, every character in the show seemed to be either "tormented" by something, "evil" or both; This can work if the characters are developed into more directions than this, but that was not the case and so they felt non-relateable and rather one-note.
The occasional special effects however were outstanding. So good in fact, that some of them made me cringe in front of the screen. A certain FX-scene, at the end of the second episode is the best one of its kind I have seen in a long time. Cinematography was also good, except for the occasional yellow/brownish filter, that was chosen for certain location and events, which I really found overused and too noticeable at some point, as well as the Apple product-placement.
Overall Hemlock Grove is a well made series, but the script is its mayor flaw. It is not for people who do not have a the patience to wait for things to unfold in a story. For me it felt to long, to drawn out with nothing relevant happening over long periods of time, except for the occasional moment when finally something happened. In my opinion, if you have a moment where you jump up and say "Oh finally something is happening!" it is not a series you want to spent your time on.
I think the biggest problem this series has, is the same many other mystery series have:
After a quick and interesting start and introduction of all important characters, the plot nearly stops and develops at a snails pace. I have not read the book this series was adapted from, but after watching all thirteen episodes of the first season, I had the impression, that a majority of the people involved in the writing and the directing process were hired to pad out the series. Dialogues were either drawn out too much, pointless or just plain bad. Scenes seemed most of the times too long and/or reflected on previous scenes in a way that nothing new was gained for the viewer. It was like the plot of the series moved at the slowest speed possible without crawling back where it came from. Half of the entire series could probably have ended on the cutting floor, without affecting the story at all.
Also the mythology of this series does not feel very developed. Intriguing the viewer with mystery might be what such a series needs to do, but (together with the slow plot) this made me look up information on an online wiki, in order to find out what exactly character X was supposed to be and how Y was supposed to work - with meager results. On that note, the series has a problem I call "mystery overload": The story does not answer its mysteries or gives only unsatisfying answers and keeps pushing out more questions. The result is, that Hemlock Grove feels like it came from the "Lost"-school of writing, leaving the viewer with the impression, that the writers just made up stuff as they went along, without having any idea where the plot should go.
Another problem I personally had, was that the two leads (the characters are supposed to be 16 to 17 years old) are cast too old and being portrait by two men that are clearly in their early to mid-twenties. But that is probably more of a personal nitpick. The acting was good on a technical level, but there is only so much you can do with this script. I had a problem to connect with main- or side-characters, because neither developed much after initial establishment. Apart from that, every character in the show seemed to be either "tormented" by something, "evil" or both; This can work if the characters are developed into more directions than this, but that was not the case and so they felt non-relateable and rather one-note.
The occasional special effects however were outstanding. So good in fact, that some of them made me cringe in front of the screen. A certain FX-scene, at the end of the second episode is the best one of its kind I have seen in a long time. Cinematography was also good, except for the occasional yellow/brownish filter, that was chosen for certain location and events, which I really found overused and too noticeable at some point, as well as the Apple product-placement.
Overall Hemlock Grove is a well made series, but the script is its mayor flaw. It is not for people who do not have a the patience to wait for things to unfold in a story. For me it felt to long, to drawn out with nothing relevant happening over long periods of time, except for the occasional moment when finally something happened. In my opinion, if you have a moment where you jump up and say "Oh finally something is happening!" it is not a series you want to spent your time on.
Devil
(2010)
The Devil works in mysteriously stupid ways
3 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is the first part of "The Night Chronicles"... never heard of that set of movies? Well, that is because, it died right after "Devil".
I must say, the idea the movie is based upon, is quite intriguing: Several characters are stuck in a elevator and one of them is a murderer, slowly killing off the others one by one. The big twist, the killer is the devil... you know, like the title.
The acting is horrible, the writing is terrible, the devil is apparently a homicidal jerk, who has nothing better to do with his eternity then harassing and killing some small-time crooks - instead of inciting more bloodshed in Africa and the Middle East. The characters are directly pulled from your big box of "stereotypical horror movie victims/jerks", that ones where you don't care if they live or die.
All of the characters seem to suffer from severe stupidity. Most of all the conclusion, why some characters know that it is the devil, who is killing the people in the elevator, is so mind-boggling I still wish I had the ability to 'un-hear' certain things.
I must say, the idea the movie is based upon, is quite intriguing: Several characters are stuck in a elevator and one of them is a murderer, slowly killing off the others one by one. The big twist, the killer is the devil... you know, like the title.
The acting is horrible, the writing is terrible, the devil is apparently a homicidal jerk, who has nothing better to do with his eternity then harassing and killing some small-time crooks - instead of inciting more bloodshed in Africa and the Middle East. The characters are directly pulled from your big box of "stereotypical horror movie victims/jerks", that ones where you don't care if they live or die.
All of the characters seem to suffer from severe stupidity. Most of all the conclusion, why some characters know that it is the devil, who is killing the people in the elevator, is so mind-boggling I still wish I had the ability to 'un-hear' certain things.
Star Trek Into Darkness
(2013)
Star Wars Trek
31 December 2013
No, it is not the "Star Trek" you grew up with...
...and probably it isn't Star Trek at all. Like its 2009 predecessor, this movie is not the enlightened future Roddenberry envisioned and has more plot-holes than your average swiss-cheese.
And again it really didn't matter to me, because it was just a fun ride.
Like the first movie, I liked the action so much so (still way too much lens-flares, though), that many of the plot-holes only became obvious to me, after I took a few moments to think about the movie. But basically, if you can make a movie so entertaining, that you don't notice all the plot holes on your first watch and be entertained, it is still a good movie.
I assume that is also the reason why the most reviews here either hate it or really like it: People who like the "Star Trek"-legacy and would like to see it continued are severely disappointed by this movie. But people who don't care about Roddenberrys "better future" or see the "Star Trek"-legacy as "redshirts dying", "too tight uniforms" and "technobabble", enjoy this flick as a good popcorn movie.
So if you still need to see this movie, do not expect "Star Trek"... expect the kind of action you wanted the "Star Wars" prequels to be.
...and probably it isn't Star Trek at all. Like its 2009 predecessor, this movie is not the enlightened future Roddenberry envisioned and has more plot-holes than your average swiss-cheese.
And again it really didn't matter to me, because it was just a fun ride.
Like the first movie, I liked the action so much so (still way too much lens-flares, though), that many of the plot-holes only became obvious to me, after I took a few moments to think about the movie. But basically, if you can make a movie so entertaining, that you don't notice all the plot holes on your first watch and be entertained, it is still a good movie.
I assume that is also the reason why the most reviews here either hate it or really like it: People who like the "Star Trek"-legacy and would like to see it continued are severely disappointed by this movie. But people who don't care about Roddenberrys "better future" or see the "Star Trek"-legacy as "redshirts dying", "too tight uniforms" and "technobabble", enjoy this flick as a good popcorn movie.
So if you still need to see this movie, do not expect "Star Trek"... expect the kind of action you wanted the "Star Wars" prequels to be.
The Last Days on Mars
(2013)
Suddenly ...
19 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie unprepared, I didn't saw the trailers, didn't read reviews, I didn't even took a look at the back-cover. From the title and the cover I expected something along the lines of "Moon" or "The Europa Report", that are both decent films in their own right. And the first third of the movie didn't disappoint: It had a good atmosphere, I liked the sets and it looked like a decent attempt at a hard-SciFi movie. I was even eager to see, where they would go with the 'Life on Mars'-plot line...
....and then suddenly zombies appeared. It was another frigging zombie-movie. Apparently life on mars evolved specifically to mutate humans into zombies.
I never experienced a moment inside a movie, that came (for me) so out of left field, was so awesome and at the same time ruined the entire movie within 5 seconds. The tension, the flick had built up, deflated as the 'plot twist' sunk in. It was like the 'twist' in 'From Dusk Till Dawn' but gone bad. So I had to stop the video and do something else, before I was able to continue.
As I returned shaky-cams and undead-makeups had taken over the movie and it was just another zombie-flick, with the exception that it took place on mars. Admittedly it isn't a bad zombie movie, there are a lot worse out there. But as I watched it, I wasn't in the mood for a another zombie movie, or better, I didn't want my hard-SciFi movie to devolve into a trope-juggling "mars of the living dead". But that was exactly what happened.
....and then suddenly zombies appeared. It was another frigging zombie-movie. Apparently life on mars evolved specifically to mutate humans into zombies.
I never experienced a moment inside a movie, that came (for me) so out of left field, was so awesome and at the same time ruined the entire movie within 5 seconds. The tension, the flick had built up, deflated as the 'plot twist' sunk in. It was like the 'twist' in 'From Dusk Till Dawn' but gone bad. So I had to stop the video and do something else, before I was able to continue.
As I returned shaky-cams and undead-makeups had taken over the movie and it was just another zombie-flick, with the exception that it took place on mars. Admittedly it isn't a bad zombie movie, there are a lot worse out there. But as I watched it, I wasn't in the mood for a another zombie movie, or better, I didn't want my hard-SciFi movie to devolve into a trope-juggling "mars of the living dead". But that was exactly what happened.
Holy Motors
(2012)
Holy Motors... Batman!
19 December 2013
This movie can be best described as a "surreal drama", that throws the viewer into one strange scene after another, all of them interconnected by the protagonist of the movie Mr. Oscar, who apparently enacts each of those scenes for a paying customer.
This film is art, or - at least - wants to be art. And like most things that try to be art, the success of actually being art depends on how the individual viewer perceives it.
So, either this movie works for you on some level, or it doesn't.
There are three ways in which you can sit down and watch this movie:
1) Try to watch it like every other movie and hate it, because it is a confusing mess of "WTF-moments".
2) Consider it as art and try to interpret it for yourself.
3) Get some beers and popcorn and riff the hell out of it in MST3000- style.
Ultimately this flick will become one of these "artsy french movies", that some people regard as art while others will consider it a waste of time. I can't and won't rate this movie, because of it's nature. But in the end it isn't a flick I want to see a second time - ever.
This film is art, or - at least - wants to be art. And like most things that try to be art, the success of actually being art depends on how the individual viewer perceives it.
So, either this movie works for you on some level, or it doesn't.
There are three ways in which you can sit down and watch this movie:
1) Try to watch it like every other movie and hate it, because it is a confusing mess of "WTF-moments".
2) Consider it as art and try to interpret it for yourself.
3) Get some beers and popcorn and riff the hell out of it in MST3000- style.
Ultimately this flick will become one of these "artsy french movies", that some people regard as art while others will consider it a waste of time. I can't and won't rate this movie, because of it's nature. But in the end it isn't a flick I want to see a second time - ever.
Pacific Rim
(2013)
"Giant robots punching giant monsters"
18 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The acting was not good, especially Burn Gorman (who can do a lot better) was hamming up the scenery like there was a discount on pork. The movie felt at times too slow, the script is - well - something between cheesy, cliché and borderline-stupid. Every trope from "I lost my partner and won't ever do this again" over "This insane plan is our last chance and the high-ups don't see it" to " (...) is the best soldier for this job and you well damn know this, Sir." was pulled our of the hat at least once...
...but honestly, the visuals are fine and after all, it is a "Giant robots punching giant monsters"-Movie. So yeah, I wanted to see "Giant robots punching giant monsters" stuff and I got "Giant robots punching giant monsters". So no complaints from my side.
...but honestly, the visuals are fine and after all, it is a "Giant robots punching giant monsters"-Movie. So yeah, I wanted to see "Giant robots punching giant monsters" stuff and I got "Giant robots punching giant monsters". So no complaints from my side.
Iron Man Three
(2013)
Not that abysmal
18 December 2013
Yeah I kinda liked it, sue me.
After everyone was beating the fecal matter out of this movie, my hopes for this film were as high as the dirt under my carpets. Yes, this film has a lot of errors you might notice or don't make sense, yes, there are pretty big plot holes in there (especially that one at the end everyone is complaining about), the plot-twist in the last act is pretty much "hit or miss" and there is at least one plot-threat that goes nowhere.
But if you are not looking for anything too fancy, Iron Man 3 is a good rental.
After everyone was beating the fecal matter out of this movie, my hopes for this film were as high as the dirt under my carpets. Yes, this film has a lot of errors you might notice or don't make sense, yes, there are pretty big plot holes in there (especially that one at the end everyone is complaining about), the plot-twist in the last act is pretty much "hit or miss" and there is at least one plot-threat that goes nowhere.
But if you are not looking for anything too fancy, Iron Man 3 is a good rental.
Superman: Unbound
(2013 Video)
Super-Meh-n: Unbound
30 September 2013
You have seen this story at least once, in one way or another. This movie is nothing new or special, doesn't try to explore anything that wasn't already done multiple times before, nor does it translate its story into an interesting form.
Whoever titled this movie "Superman: Unbound" was probably well aware of its quality and pulled "Unbound" from the "Box of titles for bad movie sequels" after the first two tries turned up "Returns" and "Lives".
This flick feels like a "monster of the day"-story for a television- series. It could make a nice two-parter in an animated superman series, but it has not the feel of a movie to it.
The basic plot is (no, that is not a spoiler): Bad guy threatens to destroy earth, superman stops him. Period. Insert super-powered fights, a mad super-villain, occasional hero-villain-banter and the last-minute- rescue in there and you got your movie.
The movie isn't more than that, it does not try to be more than that, but it fails in making a simple story an enjoyable ride. Two reasons for that are the emotionless voice-actors and below-average fight scenes. Because of that the movie fails in conveying the feeling that anything is at stake.
If you are a fan of animated superhero-movies, you won't miss anything if you skip this one, if you are not a fan of such movies, there are better movies to begin with.
Conclusion: Meh.
Whoever titled this movie "Superman: Unbound" was probably well aware of its quality and pulled "Unbound" from the "Box of titles for bad movie sequels" after the first two tries turned up "Returns" and "Lives".
This flick feels like a "monster of the day"-story for a television- series. It could make a nice two-parter in an animated superman series, but it has not the feel of a movie to it.
The basic plot is (no, that is not a spoiler): Bad guy threatens to destroy earth, superman stops him. Period. Insert super-powered fights, a mad super-villain, occasional hero-villain-banter and the last-minute- rescue in there and you got your movie.
The movie isn't more than that, it does not try to be more than that, but it fails in making a simple story an enjoyable ride. Two reasons for that are the emotionless voice-actors and below-average fight scenes. Because of that the movie fails in conveying the feeling that anything is at stake.
If you are a fan of animated superhero-movies, you won't miss anything if you skip this one, if you are not a fan of such movies, there are better movies to begin with.
Conclusion: Meh.
Tell Your Friends