Change Your Image
Ratisbonanza
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Avatar goes Starship Troopers, The Meg, Titanic; below water, but also below any substance
Below any substance except visuals. That pretty much sums it up.
Part one was a visual and computer animation revelation with a story to be pretty much expected, nothing special, but good enough, fitting and supported by the visuals. Part two is visuals only and not even impressive ones, cause you are getting used to them, especially from Cameron. And that's the problem these days: this is simply not enough. You need a movie too, and Avatar 2 is none. It's a compilation of effects and Camerons technological capabilities acquired over many years. The story is ridiculous, the characters are, the lines are lame, the Pandora magic is gone, the new "Pandora gold" the sky people are harvesting is a joke only brought in to bring the story in the water from the sky people side, but boy, so badly done.
With this movie and all follow-ons Cameron doesn't do himself a favour, as he didn't do before with his Terminator reincarnation, which was a total failure. His days are over and he shares this fate with his director buddy Ridley Scott, both never should have done any more Alien or Avatar movies. But it happened and the result is abysmal.
Thor: Love and Thunder (2022)
It's a comedy!
And a comedy only...
How is it even possible to kill any form of artistic level like they did with this movie? Or to kill off all of nordic myths elements, using them only as facade for some CGI loaded, cheap, modern teenie level, zero brainer cinematic wannabe experience?
Compare this with the first Thor movie directed by Kenneth Brannagh and you immediately see the difference, which is huge. The first part was a movie, this is a joke. A joke that got worse from one part to the next and now eclipsing everything you can possibly imagine about bad cinema, bad taste and bad movie characters.
As said: it's a comedy, but a comedy to itself...
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
Unrealistic in almost every way
5th-generation fighters visible on radar, SAMs following planes for seconds close on, flares defending against radar guided SAMs, stealing of a F-14, everything happening in close proximity so that Maverick could find Rooster and then even getting to the the airstrip and the hangar and so on. Ofc, the typical US pathos and psychological problems from the past troubling the characters and the happy end on the carrier, everybody loving everybody, one reunited happy family as it's supposed to be. So we even have a copy of the original Top Gun. But...at least some good action and a no more cocky young Tom Cruise.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
Copycat like so many other movies
Matrix 4 is in line with movies the like Star Trek und Star Wars, they are mostly feeding on ideas, characters and whole scenes of their "ancestors". Without them, they are mostly just empty shells without new ideas udn without any life. Such is the case with Matrix 4. Nothing really new to be seen here, lifeless characters and a lame story. But CGI you get, what sums up the misery of todays movie scene.
Dunkirk (2017)
Nice try and good intentions, but a failure in the end
The concept of the movie to tell the story in overlapping and in the end combining pieces is very good and the sound score supports the action, but that's about it. The pathos in the Spitfire pilots actions at the end when he still shots down a Stuka without fuel and then heroically, almost mystically flying his last meters on the beach and the wrong depiction of military actions are big downsides of the movie. No Heinkel attacks at such low altitude, no Messerschmitt wastes time to shoot on a small boat and ships don't sink so fast. What strikes me most is the poor out-fit of a movie with a 100 mill. Dollar budget. Not much to see on the beach, not much effort to make the ships look as they did back then (except for the smaller ones) and then they was some stuff to see which is by any means modern, e.g. the trains waggons inside was modern style. When you make a movie playing in 1940, you should be more careful with that. So, for me it looks like sort of an concept movie.
Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019)
Cheap teenie comedy featuring Spiderman
This movie is such a bad, typical contemporary Disney production, there are now words to express it. It's a movie for max. 10 years old who don't know about Spiderman or older ones with the taste and intellectual level of today's world population.
Watch "10 things I hate about you" and see a movie with the real intention of being a teenie comedy with so much more quality - again, there are neither words nor a measurement scale in existence to express that - while this piece of crap is a failed superhero movie with the stink of the Disney money making industry.
There's nothing more to say, every reference to scenes, actors or story in this movie failure would be pointless, cause there is actually nothing but cheap comedy mixed with CGI.
Enough said, except: don't watch it, at any cost! You only feed Disney and waste two hours time, but you won't see a Spiderman movie!
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Avengers ridiculing themselves...
...only to - after almost 2.5 hours of boring preparation - end up in a happy ending and of course more CGI laden version of "Avengers: Infinity war" with all the protagonists ever to have been in Marvel movies appearing on screen in a CGI festival which shows the true dilemma of modern movie making and the the Marvel world in special. They wanna pack it all in and in the end they get nothing, mixing it all up in a terrible way. We suddenly have Captain America to hold Mjölnir, Pepper Potts got a suit and fights (aargh!),Scarlet Witch seems to be the most dangerous opponent to Thanos, Thanos being apparently stronger without the stones (so don't go for them, dumb ass!) and among that all we have valkyrie riding her winged horse, just to mention a few. The only good scenes are the ones with Thor, and they are also the only ones where the emotional side is delivered in a believable way. Which is also a hint where the true magic of such movies _could_ be: telling stories of myths and magic, and not CGI overkill movies. Sadly, that's what we got once more, and the typical US approach anyway. So, this movie is nothing but 2.5 hours of time waste to end up in roughly 20 minutes of senseless CGI pseudo battle. If you watch it to be able to judge for yourself and get another idea of contemporary movie making, you can do that while making the dishes or doing something else useful in parallel.
Passengers (2016)
The starship excels, everything else fails
This movie is another one of these modern movies I'd like to call "designed lifestyle movies". Take a sci-fi story, enough CGI and two popular actors and go ahead. Unfortunately, there are some other things like good script, logic, atmosphere and so on. The last one is where most of such movies fail. It takes almost two hours but in this case I'd preferred the usual 1.5 hours many US mainstream movies have, would have been enough.
But it's not a demanding, sophisticated movie, there is no real good acting (Martin Sheen being the exception), no real suspension, no real catastrophe (in the end the ship is just all fine, as at the beginning of the journey), a way too simple script and a lame ending. Basically, just some simple and cheap entertainment, packed in a nice form and featuring two actors who have to drag the audience in. Most of them might ending up being quite disappointed and rightfully so.
Either you make a real disaster, a psychological or a philosophical movie, but trying to mix them all up in one thin soup doesn't work out, and that's what we got here.
But: the starship is really cool and closer to a real one than most others; might have been inspired by Stanislaw Lems "Fiasko" starship. And that's just about the best of the movie. So, enjoy the CGI views of the ship.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Abrams did it again, killed Star Wars after Star Trek
This movie is another example of modern cinema: no real story telling, no character development, mediocre acting at best, senseless lines, stealing ideas all the time and of course targeted at the widest possible audience. Instead a lot of action and XF, as we have been getting used to. Guys like Abrams are simply unable of making real good movies, period! I don't demand Hitchcock level of story telling and development of tension, but these modern director don't even meet the basics of movie making, they are just effect driven copycats.
This movie is simply an awful repetition of episode IV without any new input and more often than not slips into lowest levels of ridiculousness, especially with the wannabe Darth Vader clone, whose name I forgot which is understandable, cause this guy is simply a bad joke. Seeing him getting into anger and destroying things with his light stick...oops, sorry, light saber, just drives you to tears cause of laughing.
Compare that to the "bad" old Vader (who has been "reactivated" very good in "Rogue One") and you see the difference.
You just have to take this new bad guy compared to the old one, this is all it takes to see the difference to the old SW saga.
The "new" one or continuation if you want is a disaster.
Having it rated that high tells a clear and sad message of the taste of our current generation
abysmal as the movie itself.
Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)
What happens when you put everything in a movie? You get nothing!
Transformers 4 is basically not a movie, but solely an effects spectacle with as many of them in different forms as possible. It ends up with being nothing at all: there's no real story except for some basic, very lame story acting as skeleton for the effects. Everything else is not plausible at all and not believable, either. There's almost everything packed in a non-existing story and when you think the movie could be done, you really have still one hour to go! That's because the movie only consists of parts put together in a terrible way and it's after half of the movie that you simply can't stand it anymore. That's all I would have to say about this movie, but I'm still two lines short; you see the problem?! ;-)
Godzilla (2014)
King of the Monsters, savior of our city? Or 9/11 as monster version with good outcome?
That is the end line of the movie, and it's as ridiculous as the movie itself. Well, what happens? Some strange "anomalies" in Japan some 15 years ago, climaxing in the rebirth of Muto(s), then Godzilla appearing on the scene fighting the Mutos, some US military efforts to stop them and the usual "hero" who miraculously seems to be everywhere where it counts, but who is in fact a completely blood less guy. Ah, and two big movie stars in neglectable roles, Binoche with three minutes, Strathairn maybe with twice the screen time. This movie really seems like 9/11 as monster story with good outcome, Godzilla being the "god" that saves the people. Of course, again tons of US military and the Mutos do appear in the USA, where else. This movie is Hollywood CGI trash with no real story, lacking characters (neither the main character nor anyone else is developing, Watanabe just looks shocked and curious, alternately), just packs (again for movies of such type) everything and every cliché in the story, be it every conceivable action or scenes like family reunion and lost little kids and has no chance against Godzilla from 1998. This version may not hold on to the original, but it's still better, with some funny moments and good actors. The 2014 version has nothing, I really mean nothing to offer.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)
Not too bad, but action too unbelievable and story a little far taken. A lost opportunity.
Action wise, this is a good movie, but the problems start here when you have e.g. three heli carriers going down directly in the city or exactly where they lifted of, respectively. Or the very unbelievable falcon. On the other side, you have ordinary gunfights, so this is quite far stretched. Then we have the story around Hydra, which is completely implausible, added by Caps old friend Bucky. Btw, the title of the movie "The Winter Soldier" is quite misleading, cause he is only a quite minor part of the story. So, regarding this, you get the usual Hollywood big style action and effects show, but way, way exaggerated, and a quite lame story. The interesting thing may be the underlying message, if there is really one. By this, I mean the fact that the whole Shield structure was undermined and by this doing the exact opposite of what if was intended to. If this is so, there could be hidden critics to US policy, but I wouldn't call this for sure. If so, Cap would have to fight the system itself in the next part. That would be something! Taken this aside, good, but predictable standard Hollywood action. Nothing to get too excited about. Which is sad, because in this Captain America incarnation Evans got better, the transition to the modern world worked out, the combination with Captain America has a lot of potential and you start to develop a relation to Cap because he is (almost) on his own, has to fight the odds and doesn't feel like a invincible guy, you can see that he is "enhanced", but still human. Especially the fight in the elevator is great and good old style action. Instead they focus again on high tech and simply go to far with all this heli carrier, falcon and "kill them all" thing. That's why it is a lost opportunity.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
All mixed up in a terrible mess, but two airplanes have been saved!
This is all you'd need to know about this terrible Spiderman melange! Who wrote this script? The one who did simply took different Spiderman enemies and contents and mixed this up to a terrible movie, of course including the usual difficult love story and parent/aunt relationships, both burdened by the suppressed past and thus, more or less sick. I can understand that Gwen died in this awful Spiderman incarnation, I guess because Emma Stone had enough being part of this s*** (what kind of words are "prohibited words" here is more amazing than Spiderman, by the way
). So, if you just go to the movies to see the ever same action sequences in slow motion, this is the one for you to go, but don't expect any real, consistent story, some sort of niveau or whatsoever. With this movie, they finally buried Spiderman; part one was bad enough, but part two really puts the nail into Spidermans coffin and messes up completely.
RoboCop (2014)
Cult movie violated as vehicle for US propaganda
I will not write too much about this sorry effort to a movie, because I get upset too much. You could write about Murphy being more human as in the original instead of being dead and revitalized as machine, you could write about him not even using his cool gun or about him suddenly being in high speed mode all the time and even riding a bike.
Ergo, about everything that lacks from the original, not to mention the critical attitude towards a society in a dystopian future, when companies own not only the police, but complete governments, in the tradition of scifi novels like Lem's "Futurologischer Kongress" or John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar". What didn't hinder the movie makers to steal the original music theme and some quotes from it.
You don't have to write more about it anyway, because this movie is simply the most primitive, clumsy and obvious attempt of propaganda for US politics. Being presented from start to finish by a styled and more than less hysterical Samuel L. Jackson in the manner of a TV preacher. The message goes: accept drones not only abroad but also on your own soil, euphemistically called "for your safety". As at the beginning of the movie - with further euphemisms - the people of Tehran(!) are brought "peace", these people have to be made peaceful ("may peace be upon you(!)"/" to pacify these people"), what they accept, of course. In fact, this is a major threat to their lives, when US troops bring peace (ask the Vietnamese, or the Iraqis, etc.). How this works is shown, when a young boy "armed" with two knives is shot into pieces. Civilized and peaceful USA shows his true face.
Who stands up against this is an enemy, like the senator in the movie, and has to be handled as such, he is a criminal who has to be silenced or even be put away, best would be Guantanamo, cause in fact he is a terrorist. Isn't he?
This movie is barely disguised propaganda and brain washing to the masses, that took RoboCop as basis and that eclipses every conspiracy theory. What cannot be missing is the usual "America is now and always will be the greatest country on the face of the earth!" What America? North, Middle, South? Even for this the US seems to be too stupid, and I just cannot throw up that much as I can eat.
The Hidden (1987)
Is this movie a hidden gem?
Yes, it is. This may be called a B-movie (which it may be, but only because of quite cheap effects), but it surely is better than some first grade movies. What you get with this movie is a solid sci-fi/mystery/suspense/action movie with enough "body count" for those who care about it. What you also get is solid acting, a cop buddy story which is not too much stereotypically, a "strange" but likable MacLachlan character and for those who grow up in the 80ties, a déjà vu not only with MacLachlan, but also with Nouri and Claudia Christian, which most will best know from B5.
The best thing about this movie in my view is the fact, that the real story, the reason for the chase and especially the true face of MacLachlan's character are revealed very subtle, just so much that you notice that there could be something weird but not so much that it becomes too obvious. It's not a blatant uncovering of the real, underlying motives, which gives a touch of mystery in all the action, too.
So, "The Hidden" gets seven out of ten from me; this makes it clearly above average in a ten star rating where you have to give one star so that 5 and 6 are the average (little below/little above). I would give eight stars if the ending (the kill of the bas add) wouldn't be a little weak and the effects would be better. But seven is okay and everybody with an inclination for such type of movies can easily watch this movie, he/she won't regret it.
Skyfall (2012)
This movie fulfills his own underlying issue, in a different way.
What that is? It's the claim that agents and spies are no longer needed, and if you look at this version of Bond, you could honestly say that. Also, the super enemies can be trashed because this Bond has none.
// spoiler // This enemy gets himself caught to be able to shoot M personally, planning everything in advance, even having planted a bomb in the subway as if he could have known what would happen there, but what's happening then? You wouldn't believe it, an ordinary shooting in a rehearsal room, where of course he kills all guards who are protected by protection vests with one shot and - belonging to the underlying theme: old style agents are still needed! - the somewhat older once agent Mallory can add his arguments that the MI6 is still needed by helping to defeat the bad ass. Also, there's no Bond girl. Bond has one assistant but the woman deemed to be the Bond girl dies after roughly ten minutes screen time. So no Bond style here, too. // end spoiler //
There are more points to mention, but this is most important; Bond is no spy anymore, he's just an "Apparatschik". Don't misread me, I think Craig is a very good Bond very close to the Bond Fleming created, tougher and more cynically, but the stories are simply no Bond stories. Even the first Bond with Craig wasn't really, and it was a remake (sort of) an older story. After that, essentially two non-Bond stories have been made to Bond movies which they are not. The new action style is okay, less gimmicks than in the past, very much okay, but the stories are not, the style is not, and you really don't want to see a Bond running around with an earplug all the time to play M's executing agent on demand.
The final nail to the coffin are the references to the original at the end, that left me speechless. First you ruin the franchise, then you claim for yourself to represent it; the other way round compared to Star Trek, but not an inch better.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Short and to the point: this is not Spiderman
This movie is only based on the idea and the parts of Spiderman. The creators took Spiderman's concept and mixed it together to a new story, where everything of the Spiderman universe is completely mixed up, so far, that not much of the original idea remains. Almost every part of Spiderman's story and every character has been altered beyond recognition just to fit a new, unbelievable and lame story. Suddenly, you have a totally new background of Peters life, you have Peters mentor from high school as his opponent and Stacy father as chief of the NYPD. So, just everything mixed up to a new and not very tasteful Spiderman cocktail. The only character that improved compared to the old trilogy is Uncle Ben, Martin Sheen plays him very believable and not with that much pathos. But that's about it; after roughly half of playing time, when it comes to the showdown, it gets extremely boring. At least is has some enjoyable scenes in the first half. So, everybody who thinks that Reimi's Spiderman was too far away from the comic don't be surprised to get a shock when seeing this version, it has not much to do with the original. But apparently, today's movies are made for the new generation of movie-goers, which has no relation to the the origins of comics (or to any origin at all) and just look for some action. You see it every where, Star Trek e.g., and this is the same. Very simple popcorn cinema for the "new generation".
Dredd (2012)
Typical movie of these days...
...and - as a remake - worse than the original, just like so many times before, e.g. with Total Recall recently. This movie is solely based on loud music - so loud that you have to turn volume down in action scenes and turn it up again after wards to understand spoken word - and these not very well done and totally exaggerated slow motion scenes. Plot is not existent and the future is not very well portrayed: some newer buildings, styled-up bikes but the rest is today's or even older technology, so it doesn't even have sci-fi appeal. I don't mention Urban's wanna-be though look under his helmet, this is the final death nail of this movie, just plain ridiculous.
The Avengers (2012)
Nothing new, just some other action flicks on steroids
This movie is another typical US production: great FX, lame story, even lamer lines for the actors (espcially Hiddleston, whose character is completely wasted, even though he plays his (mad) part very good), only Downey has his usually funny highlights but this cannot save the movie. When I have figures like Thor and Loki I try to build a more mythical, special story and don't end up with the ever so boring same mankind vs. whoever fight, marking the enemy almost unbeatable at the beginning and then ending up with some metal monster that the Hulk can bring down. What more or less usual humans like Black Widow and Hawkeye can do to survive such a battlefield for super heroes is beyond my understanding, too. Not to mention the usual showcasing of US equipment (F-35 e.g.) and a "skycarrier" which in some way made me think of "Space Battleship Yamato". And last but not least no one of the ones responsible seems to have read Marvel comics when they have been young; I did, and there's no way that Iron Boy and Miss America could hold up to Thor and Hulk. How did Iron Man put it correctly in the comics (with regard to Thor/Hulk): "With enough energy I can keep up with those guys (on the Super Hero top list)...for two seconds." The end with interviews and statements on the streets and of course before that the use of nukes to close the portal brought my till then five stars vote down to three. Why for whose sake ever is the enemy superior when we have nukes and they don't? How could nukes close a portal made of pure energy from the cube which is - because of this fact - impenetrable? Unbearable US simplicity and shallowness.
Iron Man (2008)
More or less just the usual presentation
of US Army technology (remember "The Hulk"?). In some parts quite funny, but that's it, except for very good acting by Downey jr. and Bridges. If you consider the roots of the figure of Iron Man and look at the mess they created with this movie you could really cry because the figure itself has a lot of potential. In this movie it was only used as vehicle for something else. You just have to look at the "symbols" used: Afghanistan, terrorists, USA as the usual stand for freedom, and so on and so on. Please, Hollywood-Military-complex, give us a break. If really wanted, one could also do this with another story, take something like "Black Hawk down" and go for it, but don't convert a comic figure into a messenger of ever repeated US values and such. So: Four stars just because of Downey, without him only three or maybe even two.
Reign of Fire (2002)
Complete Bullshit!
Normally, enough said, but I have to add some more text, even though this is a waste of time on such a movie. The movie has no real plot, it has no logic it all, bad acting (Scorupo being worst), even the special effects are not really worth mentioning, if they were, this wouldn't help, either. More than 20 years after Mad Max another rip-off (sort of), but one of the worst kind. It's just amazing to see with which great fanfare such movies are being promoted and - even more surprisingly - being regarded in a positive way by the audience. Unfortunately, actors in Hollywood have to do some of these movies to stay in business, because: after having played in such a movie, I wouldn't offer any one of them a role anymore, personally.