Reviews

30 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Oppenheimer (I) (2023)
7/10
An highly complex movie with a ludicrous amount of dialogue about an extremely complex subject
20 November 2023
If you watch this, I hope you like WORDS. I cannot overstate the amout of dialogue this movie contains. A three hour movie with non-stop dialogue that constantly shifts between different timelines with almost every shot, requiring constant attention, and ideally, lots of knowledge about the subject at hand.

The amount of characters involved is equally gigantic, and while I contratulate the movie to decide not to drop major characters from the plot, the sheer amount of important people makes it impossible to actually build their characters - even in three hours - which again requires you to already know about this people, if you are to make any emotional connection at all to them.

Nolan requires a lot from his viewers in many of his movies, but this one takes the throne in sheer complexity, scale and depth. Even though it is done brilliantly, I cannot help but feel it is overambitious. There is only so much that you can cram into three hours. If the subject should really be tackled that extensively, maybe the format should have been a mini-series instead of a movie.

Also, the focus could have been much less on the court scenes, at the end, I felt like I myself had been interrogated for hours.

Despite its brilliance, I can therefore not really rate it any higher than 7/10.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rushed and underbudgeted production of an awesome story
17 February 2023
The book was recommended to me, and since I am currently watching The Last of Us I figured this would fit in.

I absolutely loved the book, could not put it down, and constantly saw it as a better version of The Last of Us, so I was happy to find out that not only had it been made into a movie, but the script had been written by the book's author.

So, I watched the movie immediately after devouring the book, which was an obvious mistake, since it made me notice how much they cut out - if you see a movie years after reading a book, you probably won't notice every little bit, since you might have forgotten yourself.

But even considering this, I feel like they had to try too hard to fit all of the story into a single movie, especially since it looked like they did not really have a big enough budget - Zombies are just extras with dirt in their face, all the bombastic scenes have been cut out, and there is lots of product placement. Plus a lot of the story details end up not making much sense with all the pieces they left out.

In the end, it's a nice movie with a fresh take on the Zombie genre, but the thing that made the book really outstanding - its five interesting and well-written made characters, just could not fit at all into less than two hours. There just was not enough dialogue to build any of these characters, which all had their own special arcs in the book.

Also, Paddy Considine is about the worst possible choice for the role of Sergeant Parks. I loved him in House of the Dragon, but that's because he fit that role of a doubting, hesitant king. The Sergeant was supposed to be the absolute opposite.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Throws the book, history and logic overboard in favor of movie clichés.
23 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was looking forward to seeing this movie for quite some time, the rather high IMDB score fueling my anticipation, of what seemed to be a great adaptation of one of THE must-read anti-war books of the last century.

Little did I expect that it only took the title from said book.

The movie started out well, the opening scene establishing the drepressing realities of humans being fed into the meat grinder of industrialized warfare. Yet rather soon, gaps in logic became apparent.

At the start I thought that the opening scene of the soldier dying showed the actual protagonist of the movie dying, only to cut back in time to show how he enlisted years earlier - because that would be the only way for it to make sense, since it said the scene played in 1917, and of course young people would not be trying any way they could to get into the war after it already ran for three years, and its nature and futility had become apparent to pretty much everyone.

Why would anyone make a movie about a book based on historical events, and then change the plot so it does not fit either the book, or the actual historical events, or even basic logic? I simply cannot wrap my head around it. Yet time and time again, the script of this movie chose to go down the well-trodden path of movie clichés, rather than just stick to the actual story.

Let us ignore the mediocre two hours of well-acted, but badly paced movie, where we do not actually get to know any of the characters we are supposed to care about, least of all the main character, who remains a tabula rasa mystery for the whole movie, and cut to the ending, which completely ruined it.

As if the whole story about a french farmer shooting at occupying soldiers, and his friend getting shot by a stealthy farmer boy who appears out of nowhere, after walking half a kilometre alone into the woods just to take a piss was not stupid enough, we get served an ending which takes an actual historical persona (the general), and turns him into a comic book villain executing a completely senseless plot to throw away soldiers minutes before the armistice?

Let me ask again: who on earth thinks up such absolute stupidity? Is this the ideas of a generation fed on super hero movies? Did the writers think that WW1 was not depressing or interesting enough, so they had to invent that farcical twist?

We see our main protagonist, after supposedly discovering that killing is bad halfway into the movie, once again rushing towards the french lines, even getting into a clichéd melee fight with the old trope of i-am-being-choked-on-the-ground-and-reaching-for-a-stone-to-hit-my-opponent. Yes thank you, i have not seen this exact scene enough in my life. And what is the purpose of it? Am I supposed to root for the main character which I know nothing about, because his opponent is supposed to be the bad guy? How is this scene supposed to work? In what is supposed to be an anti-war movie?

This is not simple historical inaccuracy, this is unexcusable stupidity on a level I cannot understand. But apparently, looking at the IMDB score and some reviews, there are enough people who do not care about history or logic anymore anyways, so why bother making sense, I guess.

Remarque would be rotating in his grave to see this.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A movie from an for bees.
6 August 2021
Just when i thought i had already seen all the super weird movies that suit a psychedelic movie night, along comes this gem. Total disorientation. Strange fascination. Reprogramming of pathways long disconnected way back by the dead on the moon created by the bees of kain, slayer of abel, inventor of the secret language that would one day come back to fulfill the destiny of creating a simulation of consciousness made from living symbols that contain the souls of the dead of the future in the form of bees from the garden of eden which refers to a cave that exists in the past inside a planet at the end of time and space itself that is folded into a telescope to insert the robotic target seeking consciousness of blind insectoid gods into missiles to come back to the place where my half brother used to live when he was a contractor for a company with ties to the US military that was founded by the grandmother of his stepsister to launch weapons loaded with the embodimend of the mind of kain who slew his brother abel out of jealousy for his bees, to fulfill his destiny of merging with his target in the first iraq war.

It all makes sense at the end.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Barbarians (2020–2022)
4/10
Mediocre to the bone.
27 October 2020
Not much good one could say about this... costumes are good for the Romans, and the Barbarians are not as bad as one might expect. but that's about it. The rest of the show is a mix of overdone Hollywood clichés, horrible acting and historic inaccuracies. Jeanne Goursaud is both way too old for the role she is supposed to portray and also one of the worst lead actresses I've seen in a bigger production altely.

Why not make a series that is actually halfway historically accurate for once? I can't be the only one that is tired of the same modern storyline clichés superimposed over a wannabe-historic background?
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Climax (I) (2018)
8/10
Just Gaspar Noe doing Gaspar Noe things...
2 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This is the third movie i ever saw of Gaspar Noe, after Irreversible (which i found extremely impressive for a single view, yet will probably never watch again), and Enter the Void (which is only suited for psychedelic movie nights, yet might be the best movie for that of all time, even though it is at least half an hour too long).

We start with interviews with the group of dancers that will make up our protagonists, as usual, one is left wondering how on earth Noe always ends up getting such interesting natural characters for his movies.

After the interviews we get an extremely long one-shot of the probably best dance choreography ever in any movie. It just never stops. Absolutely astonishing, one is left wondering how many times they had to take this scene in order to get it so perfect. Everytime you think it cannot possible get better, another dancer one-ups what was just done before. Indescribable, a must see.

Thereafter we watch our protagonist party and talk to each other mostly about who sleeps with whom, a piece that is probably impromptu, and comes across entertaining and interesting in regards to the group dynamics involved.

Then we get another absolutly breathtaking dance choreography, this time mostly viewed from top down. Not a single shot this time, but again one can only watch with an open mouth as it gets more and more impressive. Just stunning.

Well, and after this it's best just to turn off the movie, or go watch Irreversible if you haven't yet.

Because what follows is a forced bad trip where everything that can possibly go wrong goes wrong in a way that ends up feeling artificial, like Noe just tried to shove as many disgusting and shocking tropes into the night as possible. Dead kids locked in the basement? Check. Pregnant girls getting kicked in the stomach? Check. People murdering each other and talking each other into suicide? Check. Incest? Check.

We also never really get the promised Climax, instead, the movie goes on for too long (although not as overly long as Enter the Void), before reaching a completely unfulfilling conclusion.

Extremely unique movie, worth watching for the first half, just forget about the rest.

7/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
OK, but could be better
1 August 2020
This is basically like watching a pro play a really good first person shooter game.

what kills the immersion though, is that it is not continuous - there are cuts when the action skips forward a few paces, in order to fit all the plot in.

that is totally unnecessary and distracting imho, everytime i started to get really immersed in being henry, a cut killed the immersion.

it would have been better to drop half of the "plot" and at least half of the action scenes in order to get fewer scenes with less cuts. this way, it feels like they just wanted to cram too much in. a good FPS video game takes more than 90 minutes, but you don't have to do it all in one sitting...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Game of Thrones: The Bells (2019)
Season 8, Episode 5
3/10
not as bad as the last two episodes, but who cares anymore?
14 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Logic and consistent character development are thrown out of the window in favor of "you would have never thought of this" plot twists.

It's like the only thing D&D are trying to achieve is to be more "clever" than their fanbase by subverting expectations.

Yes, I would have never thought that Varys would have that big of a problem with people dying in King's Landing, because it completely goes against his prior character arch (remember how in season 01 they are casually talking about orchestrating a huge civil war just so that a Targaryen he doesn't even know can sit on the throne?)

I also never would have guessed that the Hound rides back to kill his brother, since it makes absolutely no sense. At no point in his character arch of 8 years did he ever mention that it was the biggest desire in his life to kill his brother. He is portrayed as a broken man who does no longer care. Also, he is no superhero, he is a broken old man, not someone who casually kills the King's Guard just so he can oppose his brother in a completely meaningless fight in a collapsing burning building, where the Mountain would have died any way, even without his intervention. Makes zero sense, so no one saw it coming.

Likewise, the biggest plot twist now seems to be that Dany is getting mad. I would not even have that big of a problem with this narrative, if there was any foreshadowing. But no, she just turns around 180° and throws all her prior character building out of the window, just so that D&D can feel clever because "no one saw it coming".

By now we are already used to the overall story making no sense at all. Northmen, who can have at most a few thousand exhausted troops left, are displayed as an important factor in taking King's Landing, when they really should not play any role at all any more.

Military tactics where you defend a castle by putting your troops in front of the walls also seem to have become the new standard in military tactics in Westeros. Maybe that's because all factions are ruled by women now...

I could go on and on, but seriously - who even cares any more at this point? The whole show died when it's main story arch was concluded in the most ridiculous and disappointing manner in S08E03, all that happens now is just adding insult to injury...
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Game of Thrones: The Last of the Starks (2019)
Season 8, Episode 4
1/10
Madness. Madness and stupidity.
13 May 2019
I can't believe how they managed to ruin the best show that ever ran on TV.

Can't say that there was no foreshadowing... the last couple of seasons introduced ever more glaring plotholes, and used ever more cheesy Hollywood clichés.

But still, I was able to overlook these things and concentrate on the good sides, and enjoy the story that had been building up for a major part of my adult life.

However, after S08E03 and S08E04, it's broken beyond fixing. I have absolutely no emotional attachment to this show any more, suspension of disbelief is completely ruined, I no longer care what supposedly clever nonsense they will pull off in the last three episodes just for cheap surprises and to thwart expectations.

It's over, and this is how it will be remembered. In 10 years, this whole show won't be "remember the greatest fantasy show ever", but "remember how they completely butchered the greatest fantasy show ever". This is a stain that cannot ever be removed from anyone that was involved in this horrible trainwreck, first and foremost the writers, who will now supposedly get to make the next Star Wars - at least there isn't anything left to ruin in that universe...

The whole world of Westeros is ruined as well... who will ever care about prequels or even sequels after this complete failure? Who will ever willingly emotionally invest themselves into a storyline in Westeros, after the biggest letdown in TV history? The only thing that might interest people is a remake with a different ending...

This, in turn, will depend on the ending of the novels. I hope - but am not sure - GRRM can at least salvage the books. At least the benchmark the books will be measured against is not set so low that it will be hard for them not to surpass expectations...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mother! (2017)
2/10
Horrible, disappointing, a complete disaster
27 December 2017
Oh Aronofsky, where have you gone wrong?

You started out with an amazing debut (Pi), followed an absolutely brilliant movie (Requiem for a Dream), and then put out my favourite movie ever (The Fountain).

From there, it was all downward, and now this?

What it this movie supposed to be? It starts out awesome, with beautiful cinematography - every little detail's color seems to have been hand-picked with great care, and the scenes come across like paintings, everything is painted in warm, brown hues.

The actors are great, and suspense builds up, and then... well then everything slowly and painfully degenerates into a screaming mess that is simply unbearable. I turned down the volume because my significant other wanted to finish this, but there is no way I would NOT have walked out of the theater on this one. There is only so much of people screaming that I can take, especially if it serves no purpose...

How long do you need to shove a point down your viewer's throats before it is enough? EVERYONE ALREADY GOT IT (or stopped caring what this is about).

I wish this would have been at least half an hour shorter... but that probably wouldn't have been enough to make it a good movie anyways.

I don't know what else to say, really, since I want to keep this review spoiler-free... not really like there is much to spoil anyways, but I want to warn everyone who does not read reviews that contain spoilers:

DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.

It's a waste of time and will piss you off.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Notebook (2004)
5/10
Charming, if a little generic and naive romance flick
4 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The notebook is a charming romance movie that easily transports you back into the 40ies to tell its pretty implausible story of a woman torn between two men.

That being said, I do not understand Ryan Gosling's acting at all, especially not in a romance flick.

Like in the movie Drive, his character keeps the same constant look of detached, dreamy, slightly silly, perpetual slight amusement on his face all the time - whether he meets the love of his life, or his best friend dies - it doesn't seem to make any difference to him.

I simply don't understand whats the point of that. In a romance movie, the actors should try their best to convey believable emotions, not try to hide them at all cost? While in Drive, this sort of acting made some sort of sense within the generally weird framework of that movie, it just seems completely out of place in a romance movie, and is especially noticeable here because of its contrast to the lively, hearty performance of Heather Wahlquist as Sara.

In the end, this did not really completely ruin the movie for me, but I still found it distracting and detrimental to the overall charm of an otherwise above-average romance movie.

Still, the high rating on IMDb would have irritated me either way, but I guess the tear-jerking end served to push that up.

5/10
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Life Eternal (2015)
5/10
Lazy, mediocre Austrian film
4 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Take a locally popular author's new novel, make another sequel out of it, pick the usual suspects for the lead roles, and you got yourself another run-of-the-mill Austrian movie.

Hader is good as Brenner, even though the whole "i am so depressed life is so hopeless" thing feels exaggerated at times.

Düringer is okay as Köck, his performance suiting one of the one- dimensional quirky characters he is used to playing

Moretti is downright embarrassing as Aschenbrenner, failing hilariously in his attempts at a Styrian accent in some scenes, while not even bothering to try in others.

The whole story is pretty predictable, only getting less predictable from the sloppy choice of actors - the "twist" of Maritschi being Dr. Irrsiegler's mother is hard to foresee, since in the back-flashes she is almost as tall as the men, while being much shorter when she is old - obviously not being the same person. Dr. Irrsiegler is obviously German, not Austrian (she does not even attempt to try to speak the local dialect, and just generally looks 100% German), so one would not expect her to be grown and raised in Graz.

Altogether the whole movie seems to have been put together without much effort or polish, relying on the usual big names in Austria pulling the crowd in the cinemas. It feels lazy and mediocre, and it is only because of the solid script and charming performance of Hader as Brenner that it does not feel like wasted time to watch it.

5/10.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
way too over the top to be a drama, not funny enough to be a comedy
8 June 2017
Ben is a single dad, living with his 6 kids in the forest. If they are not busy rock climbing, learning a 7th foreign language, discussing mMrxism, or making presentations to each other about quantum theory, they are working out, killing deer with their bare hands, or generally doing everything necessary to self-sustain on their own in the woods.

Do they ever sleep? Does anyone see a problem with realism here? I don't really know what this movie wants of me. It is far too unrealistic to take it seriously, yet not funny enough to make me laugh more than once or twice. The whole "super-scientist- survivalist-left-wing-hippie-fantastic-dad" is just cramming too many things into one character, most of which don't even make that much sense. Apart from a shallow pseudo-conflict between Fantastic Dad and one of his sons, there is no conflict whatsoever in this family, and no flaws or downsides to any characters to make them resemble actually believable real-life human beings.

What makes this movie watchable is the great acting, the good music, and the two or three geunuinely funny scenes. Still I think its ridiculously overrated right now on IMDb (7.9).

6/10.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
not really what i expected...
18 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Reading the short description on IMDb I thought this would be a suspense/psycho thriller. Instead, it comes across as a weird genre mix which ultimately did not really work out for me.

Even though all the (three) actors are good, with John Goodman delivering an outstanding performance. Pacing is okay, although sometimes rather slow without really building suspense.

What I really disliked the unnatural and forced feeling of the ending, but I guess JJ Abrams does not like to make a movie without aliens...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Lobster (2015)
5/10
Painful to watch, but unforgettable for its sheer strangeness
9 May 2017
This was definitely the strangest movie I have seen in a long time, maybe ever.

It is not a particular good movie, and will you probably not be able to make much sense of it (I know I was not), but - given you actually manage to sit through it - you will definitely remember it, and probably tell other people about it.

Does that make it a good movie? I don't think so. But if you want to see something really strange and different, unlike anything you ever saw before, it might be worth investing the time - even if it runs more than two hours, we never really got the urge to turn it off while watching it, since every time we were in danger to get bored, the movie got even stranger, making us watch in baffled disbelief as the bizarre story unfolded.

5/10. Would definitely not watch again, but do not regret watching either.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I Origins (2014)
4/10
Pseudo-clever mediocre movie about interesting concepts
9 May 2017
Let me start by saying that i might be biased, since I studied molecular biology, and people tend to be especially harsh with movies portraying their own field of knowledge in an unrealistic way.

With that out of the way, lets be quite clear about one thing: absolutely everything that has anything to do with science in this movie makes absolutely no sense at all.

I don't want to bore anyone with scientific details, but even ignoring the pretentious pseudo-scientificness, its fundamental premise about disproving god scientifically makes about as much sense as the fundamental premise of the matrix about machines using people as a source of energy.

So what we end up with is a movie that tries very hard to come across as deep and clever, but ends up being pretentious and shallow. The acting is OK, the pacing is okayish, the shaky cam annoyed me at times, but the general visual style of the movie is pretty slick, and the dialogue - apart from the times they try to sound like scientists - is definitely above average.

4/10 - good conversation starter, since it tackles interesting topics, but ultimately a mediocre movie that tries too hard to come across as clever.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Westworld (2016–2022)
6/10
visually stunning, slow-paced, illogical, pseudo-intellectual
28 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
While Westworld ist not a bad show, I feel like it's still a waste of excellent actors and outstanding amounts of resources on a plot that could be told much better in any normal-length movie.

The visual beauty and great acting was the only thing that made it at least halfway worth my time to finish episode 1. There is no buildup of suspense, no really likable characters to root for, and way too many plot holes apart from the illogical premise itself to suspend disbelief for long enough to really get immersed in this world.

Even the show's central philosophical themes - what is consciousness? what makes us human? etc., have been tackled better by a large number of movies and books - and even if they were done better it would have been hardly enough to provide and interesting backdrop to 50 hours of senseless violence, unnecessary nudity and cowboys shooting each other. (i hear they are planning 5 seasons of this? WTF?)

Much of the discussion is pseudo-intellectual at best. The whole idea of playing in an - albeit very real - computer game revealing a person' true self is silly and lends credibility to all those idiotic "first person shooters turn people into mass murderers" arguments. For example, I felt that the whole William / Logan substory was hypocritical and pseudo-moralistic. We are supposed to see William as the good guy, because he refuses to have fun in a virtual world, and see Logan as the bad guy because he kills robots whom he attributes no consciousness to? Doesn't this mean we are bad people if we enjoy watching a show that mainly consists of violence? I really disliked William's character for that reason, and the eventual revelation that he is the Man in Black - who was pretty much the only interesting character apart from Ford - was very disappointing.

The pace of the show is creeping slow. I felt like the first four episodes consist mainly of naked robots being asked the same questions all over again, interspersed with boring and pointless gunfights between robots - nothing to care for, nothing of interest, no buildup of any suspense, since the basic "the robots will eventually rise against their masters" theme can be concluded from the show's premise without even watching it.

The later seasons branch into a couple of uninteresting sub-plots, with barely enough happening each episode to move the plot along at a creeping pace - at one point so little was happening that I felt like I wouldn't even have noticed if I skipped an episode or two.

The only thing that made me continue watching was the attempt to figure out the many inevitable plot twists in advance - something made rather hard by the numerous plot holes in the story, and the lack of clues or foreshadowing, which also makes the eventual revelation of the twists rather anti-climatic (oh, so Bernard is the one guy of the main cast who is a robot even though he thinks he's a human - well I guess it would have worked all the same if it was any other character...). Also, many of the most interesting riddles (who is the man in black? what is the maze?) lead to very unsatisfying conclusions or no conclusions at all.

I'm definitely not going to watch another episode of this, I felt like I wasted a lot of time that could be better spent on better shows or movies.

6/10, but mainly for visual beauty and great acting.
110 out of 214 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
boring, tedious, meaningless eulogy of a genius
9 January 2016
How you can make something this sad, this boring, this tedious and meaningless out of the life of one of the greatest writers and journalists of the 20th century is just beyond me.

It's just a string of interviews with past friends that come across as whiny "now he is dad" kind of eulogy stuff.

The facts are kind of interesting, but if I want to read facts, I can look them up on wikipedia.

This is not entertaining.

This is not interesting.

This is not Gonzo.

THIS IS NOT WHAT HUNTER WOULD HAVE WANTED!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Revenant (I) (2015)
6/10
great effects and an awesome start but degenerates into a meaningless mess of Hollywood clichés
7 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I recently came across the story of Glass briefly when reading TC Boyles "The Harder They Come", and since this book increased my already big fondness for pioneer or realistic wild west settings, I was looking forward eagerly for a new big budget movie that promised to capture the pioneer era atmosphere in a grim survival story.

The movie starts out awesome enough, kicking off with a powerful Indians vs Pioneers battle scene that features incredibly long, action-packed shots. Unlike in the original story the movie is based on, Glass brings his half-Indian son along, creating some father/son moments and some tension with the other guys on his trek who are not that fond of savages. Shortly after, we are treated to the high point of the movie - the already famous bear scene, which is masterfully done, and painful to watch for its cruel realism.

Unfortunately, from there, it is all downhill.

The whole point of the original story, Fitzgerald and Bridger leaving Glass behind, gets watered down by the state Glass is pictured to be in - the way it is shown in the movie, it would have obviously been the only logical thing to do to leave him behind, with the Indians on the trek's tail and his chances of survival being nil.

Rather than creating a believable dilemma, the movie goes all over- the-top in Hollywood clichés. Instead of just leaving a maimed Glass behind for dead, Fitzgerald kills Glass'es son, turning a survival story into a revenge thriller. We are shown all kinds of bad aspects of Fitzgerald's character to turn him into "the bad guy" so we can root for Glass killing him at the end.

At the same time, the whole Indian side-story that was courageous enough to show Indians as ruthless attackers and not stick to the "noble savage" cliché gets watered down with an unbelievable silly twist when it is revealed that the Indians are just searching for the chieftain's kidnapped daughter, which we later find out was kidnapped by those pesky French, who do all kinds of badguy Indian killing stuff (as opposed to our noble pelt hunters, who are righteous decent human beings with the exception of the traitor Fitzgerald).

The actual survival story then gets completely out of hand, being so over-the-top as to remind me of action movies like Die Hard 2, that do not claim to be realistic and do not take themselves as serious as this movie. Glass, still in a state where he can only crawl, escapes the Indians by jumping into an ice-cold river, gets thrown down waterfalls, gets on a horse, falls down a cliff of around 100ft, etc etc etc. At this point, the survival story failed to grip me, since it was obviously based on comic book physics and -realism.

It gets even more ridiculous, when Glass manages to find the time on his survival ego trip to befriend a lone Indian (who is later killed by the evil, evil French, but not before healing Glass with some Indian sweat lodge magic), and even to rescue the Indian chieftain's daughter who was held prisoner as a rape object by the French, who again thankfully stepped in to fill in for the bad guys.

Despite all of this, the movie manages to stay pretty enjoyable (and never boring) until the ending, which was so horribly predictable that it made me cringe.

First Glass meets up with the rest of the trek, looking extremely healthy for what he's supposedly been through - DiCaprio could have at least lost some weight for this movie, or otherwise they could have used CGI to make him look thinner.

Fitzgerald escapes from the camp, stealing the money from the rest of the crew in the process (that baddie bad guy!). For some reason, even though they still have plenty of other men left, only Glass and the Captain set out as a group of two to hunt Fitzgerald down.

When the Captain then tells Glass some sentimental crap about his wife when they sit down at a fire at night, he might have just as well put on a red Star-Trek shirt, because it couldn't have been made any more obvious that he would be shot in the lead-up to the inevitable showdown between Glass and Fitzgerald.

Predictably enough, thats exactly what happens. To make matters worse, we are not only treated to the good old "both antagonists lose their weapons so it degenerates into a fist fight" cliché, but then, as the predictable fight, that tries to make up in cruelty what it lacks in innovation, inevitably ends with our hero Glass beating Fitzgerald and threatening to cut his throat, Fitzgerald tells him in a typical bad-guy way that killing him won't bring back his son, AND SO GLASS REFUSES TO KILL HIM. Are you kidding me? You just ruined the whole point of turning a survival story into a revenge trip, and lost the last bit of credibility the story had until now.

But of course we cannot let the bad guy get away, and so the actual killing is done by the Indians, who arrive just in time to finish Fitzgerald off and stare silently at Glass in a menacing silent Indian cliché thing. Since Glass saved his daughter's life, the Indian chieftain refrains from killing Glass, and instead rides off silently without acknowledging or helping the wounded Glass lying on the ground who saved his daughter's life. Makes sense.

The movie fades out with a shot of Glass staring into nothing. At least he didn't go after the chieftain's daughter to make some more Indian half-breed babies and live happily forever after.

6/10
147 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Her (2013)
4/10
the ultimate hipster movie. visually stunning, intellectually interesting, but unforgivably slow and boring
22 June 2015
This movie has all the ingredients of a classic - good actors, an awesome never-before seen visual style for the near future, interesting dialogue, a clever and kind of novel story...

Unfortunately, what absolutely killed this movie for me was that it is way, way too long. This movie has absolutely no business of being more than 1:20. It's length feels forced, it's like the movie is so in love with its own visual style that it cannot help but move from one scene with a nice backdrop to another with a cool time lapse to another back-flash montage etc etc etc. It's like it's moving in circles.

But the thing is: it's basically all monologue. The movie's cool backdrops non-withstanding, it could just as well be an audio book. All you do is watch the main character talk talk talk talk, with no other persons on screen most of the time. While the acting is above-average, we could not sit through the whole movie in one go. My girlfriend got really sleepy after what seemed to us like 90 minutes, yet when i checked, only 50 minutes had elapsed. When we finished the movie on the next day, it felt again like two hours.

Don't get me wrong - I do not dislike slow movies in general, quite the contrary. But this movie is not only slow, there is just nothing to see on the screen except for a hipster fashion parade of the future. You might as well close your eyes.

Its a general tendency nowadays for almost all movies except for cheap popcorn-flicks to run for at least two hours. Even senseless blockbuster action flicks nowadays have no shame running two and a half hours or even three hours, and that length isn't justified by a huge story arc, but only achieved by lots of filler scenes, or - in the case of "Her" - by repeating its main ingredients over and over and over.

At the bottom line, this is what this came down to for me: a movie that is so in love with its own greatness that it is unwilling to let go and just move on. This makes it the ultimate hipster movie, even more than all the moustaches and sci-fi hipster fashion.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
boring and pointless movie with great visuals
1 December 2014
all style no substance - this is how one could sum up this movie.

the visual style in general and the colors in particular are awesome, and only serve to make the movies already splendid scenery even more impressive.

however, there is no substance to be supported by these nice visuals. the story is neither realistic, nor funny, nor emotional, nor interesting. i had simply no idea what to do with this movie.

furthermore, it suffers from the typical fate of child-centered movies: bad child actors, even though its hard to see how better actors could have helped, since all the characters in the movie are completely unrealistic 2d-stereotypes anyways

maybe this is enjoyable in theaters for the visuals alone, but as a movie, and not a showpiece of color filters and nice scenery, it fails completely
17 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Fountain (2006)
10/10
My favorite movie of all time.
19 November 2014
First off, that the first time I saw this, I was slightly disappointed, since I expected something more similar to Aronofsky's first two movies - "Requiem for a Dream" and "Pi". Something raw, something brutal, something in-your-face.

The Fountain is more complicated though. After seeing it for the first time, the music and the visuals never completely left me, and i kept watching it. Again and again. By now i saw this movie more often than any other (ten times so far), and it still does not bore me. In fact, I keep discovering new stuff every single time i see it.

This is one of these rare works of art where every scene, every dialog, every tiny detail in the background, every note in the score, is of importance for the grand overall picture - and what a picture it is indeed!

Life, death, love. The cornerstones that define the human conditions, are what this movie is ultimately about. Most that would have tried to get across the point that "The Fountain" makes would have failed, but not Aronofsky - he delivers it with unmatched visual perfection, and with the help of outstanding acting from his cast.

No movie ever matched the score and the visuals so well. The music is beautiful and haunting at times, and keeps building up momentum, just like the movie does, towards the biggest, most emotional and deepest climax I ever saw in any movie. Be sure to turn the volume up for this one!

An extremely powerful movie, and very thought-provoking at that.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interstellar (2014)
4/10
The most overrated movie on IMDb right now, a complete letdown
19 November 2014
If you saw "sunshine" and thought "wow, good thing they had scientist advisers, this stuff is so plausible", you will like "interstellar".

If you saw "armaggeddon" and thought "what an awesome movie, i just wished they would have dragged the scene where he says goodbye to his daughter out even more", you will like "interstellar".

If you saw "inception" and thought "this movie would be so much better in SPACE!", you will like "interstellar".

And if you liked "2001" or any other intelligent/geeky sci-fi movie, you will hate "interstellar".

Like some of Nolan's earlier works, it's long for the sake of length only. Its plot is up there with "armaggeddon" in pure stupidity and forced US-cowboy-patriot-macho-ism, its special effects are underwhelming, its plot twists are obvious, its setting makes no sense, its characters are flat and forgettable, and its constant citations of "2001" just serve to make you remember how much better Kubrick did all of this with a tiny fraction of the money almost 50 years back.

Disappointing.
224 out of 504 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Vow (2012)
6/10
Average Hollywood romance that still manages to raise some interesting questions
19 November 2014
Based on a (no doubt heavily modified) true story, "The Vow" suffers from the typical Hollywood romance flaws: everyone is way too good looking to be believable, the protagonists are flawless and perfect human beings, and the ending can be seen coming from miles away.

The interesting premise still makes for an above-average movie though, the main actors serve well as eye-candy, and the movie does not possess any unnecessary lengths.

Above average, but if you want to see a really good movie about memories, forgetting, and love, try "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" instead.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cloud Atlas (2012)
10/10
in some ways better than the novel, in some ways worse, but a very beautiful adaption
15 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
after recently finishing the novel i decided to give this movie another watch. i watched it in theaters when it came out and liked it a lot, and my opinion of it improved even more with the second watching

why this bombed at the box office i cannot understand. special effects, cast and acting are awesome, and while i like long movies in general i have yet to see another movie that seems so short and without any lengths even though being 3 hours long.

time just flies by as you watch a mesmerizing whirlwind of character archetypes playing out their roles again and again through different times. compared to the book, the repetition of motives and actions by the same kind of people stands out even more in the movie, thanks to the nice trick of using the same actors for same personalities through all times.

the movie heavily changes the plot line in many of the sub-stories, which was a necessity since the novel would have been impossible to make into anything less than 8 hours long otherwise. some of the changes are made out of necessity of shortening and simplifying individual plot lines, some of them actually improve the story by adding even more deja-vues and connections, like Vivian Ayrs the composer living in the same house later used as aurora home for the elderly, instead of living in french- speaking Bruges like in the book. adding another language would have been pushing it too far anyways, since the movie is already demanding with its multitude of dialects spoken throughout different times.

some changes seem a bit forced however, such as the oil industry instead of nuclear power being the big evil in the 70s plot line, a change that ended up not making much sense at all, and just served to push an agenda, like the inclusion of global warming in the Neo Seoul plot line. the post-apocalyptic plot line in the far future gets changed the most, and ends up making not much sense at all (why do the Prescients not just fly up the mountain? why do they not use their advanced weaponry to help the valley people fight the Kona? why do they need to send a signal for help to colonies? the whole concept of outer space colonies saving mankind from earth makes little sense scientifically), however i have to say that the book had its logical flaws as well, and these can be overlooked in a work of this scale.

one of the main topics of the book, the rise of a corpocracy and the description of the future in Neo-Seoul, was basically dropped from the script in favor of more action, a decision i find understandable since there is not that many chances to have special-effects-laden action scenes in the other plot lines, and which ends up working okay in my opinion.

the topic of slavery is even more pronounced than in the book, and although i disliked that the movie chose to simplify here and stereotypically show white people as the enslavers of Atua in the earliest plot line, instead of Maori people like in the book, this can be excused with the necessary streamlining and simplification of all plot lines.

all in all, this was a way better movie adaption of a nearly unadaptable book than anyone could hope for. i liked both the movie and the book, they both have their strengths and weaknesses. the book might be overly long at times, while the movie might sometimes be overly simple and not making much sense. but overall it is a masterpiece, and way better than anything anyone could expect from the Wachowskis after they totally botched the matrix sequels.

why it gets so much hate is clear as well: it offends a lot of people with its esoteric concepts like re-birth, and maybe even moreso with homosexuality and trans-gender themes. but if you are not a close-minded bigot, and are not annoyed by the constantly switching between plot lines, i see absolutely no reason why you should not love this movie.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed