Tobbes Reviews

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Jumpy and loud.

[6/10 · 5 August 2023]

The movie takes a reasonably interesting look at Oppenheimers life and work. It uses the most part of its 3 hours runtime focusing around two periods of Oppenheimers life: the time in Los Alamos and the time around the hearing for the renewal of his security clearance. The latter one is the anchor from which the movie jumps around the other timeframes.

While the movie gives an ok view of Oppenheimer on the outside, it never gets into his head. Instead, it keeps his thoughts and motives a mystery. This is done by design, it's not an oversight. For me, this is the film's greatest flaw. The events and people around Oppenheimer are known and can be read and watched from many sources. His inner workings are never part of that, so an examination, even if it was a kind of best approximation, would be something new.

However, it is not the films only flaw. It feels jumpy in it's movement between the timelines, and the methods to keep them apart for the viewer seem somewhat crude. Then there is the director's play with sound volume that really got on my nerves. Nolan started this around Interstellar and Dunkirk and adopted it as a signature style element of his. For me, it's an attack on the ears and way too loud in a good theater.

Then there is the smaller stuff. Oppenheimer's surroundings and times were filled with great minds, some of which appear for longer or shorter screentime. Sadly, all of the stay cardboard cutouts with no depth at all. The deserved more.

So yeah, the movie's a bit meh. It's not a bad movie, all considered, but it's also far from good. And maybe a movie is not the right format for the subject. There was just too much going on in that time and too many people of importance involved in the events. I think a limited series, maybe 6 parts of an hour or so would have been a better idea.

Watch it anyway. It's too important not to.

Black Adam (2022)

Man, DC just can't get it together.

[5/10 · 25 March 2023]

I'm not much of a DC comics connoisseur, so I did not know Black Adam before the movie. What a great character DC has with him. Irresistibly strong, but tortured and full of rage he affects on his enemies and those of his people. And rightfully so. A kind of at least morally not-that-superior Superman. Or maybe Superman with the moral compass of Batman. I really liked that. I also liked the character of Dr. Fate who has a lot of potential. The Hawkman and Atomsmasher however, mighty weak sauce.

But then, DC strikes again and ruins it real good. Weak story, just too much and in part wholly unnecessary cgi that wasn't even all that good. Then a surprising lot of stupid creative decisions that I will not spread out here to avoid spoiling the story. I have to say, I'm a little mad how bad DC handles it's stuff. It's a waste.

Manhattan (2014–2015)

Cheapest kind of drama

[3/10 · 5 March 2023]

What starts with an interesting premise soon mutates into cheap drama. Hardly any real progress in the core matter happens anymore, which would be the development of the first nuclear bomb. Instead, the series descends into 90 percent who screwed whom and who screwed whom over or out of a career. The bomb only serves a washed out backdrop for the drama. Within a few episodes, you get a sad, hollow thing that otherwise might have been a good series.. The actors and the theme surely were there. That however, was obviously never even considered. Considering how interesting and dramatic the real Manhattan project was, this seems like quite the ignorance. For the sie of drama, the series works almost exclusively with made up characters, hardly using the real people except for cheap voyeurism for example in the case of Oppenheimer.

Long story short: a series for complete airheads without any interests whatsoever.

Warrior Nun (2020–2022)

Really quite good

[7/10 · 5 January 2023]

The Warrior Nun feels in many respects like a breath of fresh air and somewhat nostalgic. The series takes some of the vibes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and takes it out of the nineties and into some maybe-religious conflict spanning worlds and millennia, but equally important, into the 2020s. Thematically the series can be seen as a continuation of a graphic novel of the same name, although it takes place about a thousand years after the events in the novel. Storywise it also has great potential with the graphic novel as a history and a future with hints of a celestial conflict on the horizon. Finally, it has good characters and a good female hero. Remarkably, almost all main characters are female which is a change from the many almost-all male casts with the odd female sprinkled in, and they are mostly good or at least ok. No real stinker in the bunch (although I must say, that a series like this does not really require masterful character actors). So, in all, good series for the YA and those who are that in spirit. I am one of those older ones and I liked it a lot.

So, what does Netflix do? The cancel it after the second season on a cliffhanger. Grave mistake. Maybe they did not get the instant hit they had envisioned and most of all not the instant riches they were craving for. - Or was it the religious theme and the homosexual hero? Some fire on the service line, hm? - Or did the all female cast see the potential of what they were doing and actually wanted to get paid after S2? The nerve! - In the end, we won't know what made them cancel the series. It is a shame however, seeing what gets continued and greenlit instead. A well. Another chance lost.

Jupiter's Legacy (2021)

Quite good - shame it was cancelled

[7/10 · 11 September 2022]

I watched Jupiter's Legacy within a few days and liked it a lot. It hat an interesting perspective on the superhero business and brought a bit of fresh air. It really is a shame it was cancelled. I can only assume production was very expensive and view-wise it was not the smash hit Netflix had expected it to be for the price. Let the business clowns decide what stays and this is where you're at. In my opinion though, the series would have been worth investing in another season and see how it fared then. Especially when compared to some other productions Netflix did renew. They must be dirt cheap to still be around, 'cause I cannot imagine a lot of people watch such junk. Ah well, another one gone. Maybe Netflix smarts up and brings it back.

Moonfall (2022)

Hilariously bad

[4/10 · 17 August 2022]

Moonfall is over the top, stupid and on many occasions hilariously bad. However, it is not boring. Viewed with friends who know what they are getting into, it can be a lot of fun. It ticks all the boxes of the genre: a hero, fallen from grace; a carreer-hungry partner; ignorant superiors, trigger happy militaries and a crazy conspiracy theorist. Mix all that and shake well with ok cgi and a lot of noise and you get the picture. I myself would have liked it better if the actors took it all less seriously. They did come across a bit tired and bloodless. Understandable, because they certainly knew what they weren't cast in anything resembling art, but they could have taken it like The Rock: enjoy the hilarity and thrive in it. That would have elevated the whole movie.

Titane (2021)

Useless crap.

[1/10 · 25 June 2022]

From some previous experiences, I had the opinion that I dislike french cinema. It is often pseudo-artsy, but pointless in the end with strangely meandering stories and weird acting.

Then I thought, let's watch a movie, although french, that was highly decorated, not only in Cannes. Maybe it will be good.

But no. No it's not. It's some pseudo artsy crap that is pointless and by that useless a a movie. Strange acting, too. Very french. I think I'm done again with french cinema. For the next few years at least.

Foundation (2021– )

Foundation? No. But any good? Depends...

[5/10 · 26 November 2021]

So, first things first: is this Asimov's Foundation. No, not at all. They took the title and a few names from the book. The abstract concept of an empire before it's downfall, a try to shorten the time of barbarism in it's wake by mathematically predicting the dynamics of large populations and furthering the rise of a new civilization. Certainly, they changed sex and ethnicities of some main characters, but that, of course, is of no real consequence for the story. From book to series, they would have to add some details in the storylines, as Asimov did not really concern himself with the small personal plots. He wove a grander picture. However, they did not do that, but rewrote and changed the whole thing in the arrogance and hybris of thinking they could do it better than Asimov. They could not. They could not even capture a vague spirit of it.

So it's not Foundation, but is it good as it's own story within the set boundaries? Sadly, mostly no. It's visual qualities are beyond doubt. Wonderfully realized and often quite beautiful. Beyond that it is a weak soap opera with hints of female empowerment (that is not a negative) and some wishy-washy sci-fi plots that are all over the place. The only good idea is the genetic dynasty of empire to symbolize the static entity the empire has become - completely resistant to change and evolution. All else is aimless meandering. Quite a waste.

Home Sweet Home Alone (2021)

Terrible soulless cash grab

[1/10 · 14 November 2021]

I like the two original Home Alone movies. While certainly not the best films out there, they have a heart and good humor. This newest entry however, has nothing. No heart, no soul, no humor - i kid you not, not one single joke lands. This film has no reason to exist but to grab some money on a still good name. Like the third one did. However, that name is now seriously tarnished by a 50% stinker rate.

Bonnie & Bonnie (I) (2019)

Very german

[5/10 · 8 September 2020]

The story, as the title implies, is a variation on the common Bonnie and Clyde theme. The setting of this movie, a lesbian relationship with a wild girl and a cultural family background, where this is not allowed, could have brought some fresh air to it. Alas, it did not. All too much cliche hinders the story and for me, a typical german ending kills it altogether. This last statement is a question of taste, of course, but I really am very tired of the "bad ending". The "Hollywood ending" seems to be so notorious within the german filmmaking community, especially the independent, more artistic scene, that every story seems to end in a worst case scenario, just to show that this particular filmmaker did not write that hated Hollywood ending. The effect of this is equally predictable as the "always good" ending, as every story ends in catastrophe and despair. Sure, they try to redeem that with some final scene that shows strength and autonomy in the face of the past events, but it still leaves a sour taste. So, sorry for the long rant, but this kind of filmmaking angers me more and more. That kind of perspective on every story (this isn't going to end well...), be it fictional or real, is very german, and to this German, this is very frustrating.

Another Life (2019–2021)

This is beyond stupid

[1/10 · 25 July 2019]

To make this short: imagine a bunch of staggeringly unprofessional acting whining millenials on a mission to make first contact with an alien race in an effort to maybe save earth. But it is all so inconvenient, since everyone on this ship is so involved with petty personal matters, that they really can't be bothered.

Unbelievable crap.

The Unit (2006–2009)

Very entertaining, but goes downhill after season 2

[6/10 · 24 September 2010]

The Unit is a very entertaining series. Because of the many reviews I spare you the story content and lengthy character descriptions. The action and tactics on screen seem believable for the average TV viewer (translates to: non-professional in the military, police or security sector) although I think this might be different for people in this kind of profession. The stories concerning the unit men and their missions are usually quite good, at least for the first two seasons, as were the wives' stories until that point. Starting at the beginning of the third season (cut short to 11 episodes due to the writer's strike at that time) the stories became progressively weaker and the wives stories became headache-inducing. Now, I recently bought the fourth season on DVD and wish I hadn't. The stories are mostly outright silly, the look of the action and the behavior of the unit members seemed a lot less professional and the wives stories were unbearable (sometimes I wondered if I had zapped over to Desperate Housewives, other times I could not wrap my head around the craziness of sending untrained housewives on military / recon missions - who in the writing room had that idiotic idea?). The quality of the writing here was so far below that of the first two seasons and even the third that one must wonder what caused this. If I might propose a theory: During the first two seasons, Eric Haney, one of the real members of that covert ops unit, was shown in the credits as a producer. In seasons 3 and 4, his name was notably absent (although because of the writers' strike, the stories of season 3 were mostly older concepts) . And overboard went the attempts to "keep it real" and on went the writing room madness. A little more drama for a lot less accuracy. Very, very bad decision. Another bad decision was shifting the focus from 80% unit action and 20% wives to a near 50-50 to capture the female audience. And those horrible story lines for the wives - oh no. If I could rate the seasons separately, I would give s1 9/10, s2 9/10, s3 7/10 and s4 4/10, which makes an average of 7.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

The single worst superhero movie I have ever seen

[1/10 · 1 May 2009]

Wow, Fox, I'm almost speechless. With the background of Wolverine, it is almost an art form of it's own to produce a movie that isn't even remotely interesting, exciting or even entertaining. Or a movie with a story that would fit on a post-it. And - with a main character like Wolverine, mind you - not one funny line in the dialog. But all that was accomplished fabulously. You created a rather boring movie with no story and some of the worst dialog I've ever heard. The whole movie feels like a rather random sequence of scenes where assorted mutants and wolverine show of their powers. Now one might say that it's a comic book movie and effects and colorful lights really are the main point of interest in such a movie. And while I don't agree with that myself, this statement has a point. But Wolverine also fails on that ground. Some of the SFX and CGI are quite good, but for the most part the range is from mediocre to really bad. And that is inexcusable.

I could go on for a long time stating the failings of this movie, but I have wasted enough time on this horrible mess. One question is still to be answered for those who like the X-Men and have have seen the other three. Is it worse than the third one? Oh yes! Much, much worse.

Take this as a friendly warning. Don't waste your time. It sucks. Bad.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

John McClane is there, but does he die hard?

[7/10 · 2 July 2007]

In short, not really. This however is absolutely not Bruce Willis' fault. He is working really hard to show that John McClane is very much alive and kickin', but his surroundings fail in so many ways you almost feel sorry for the effort Willis puts in. The story is quite alright with not too many plot holes for this kind of movie, so not much to complain in that department. The supporting cast however give more than enough reason to complain. Timothy Olyphant delivers a really weak performance as the main bad guy. Though it may be not his fault, because he's really got not much to work with. Most of the time he's making faces while talking angrily into a web cam. Oooh, scary. Then there is his main henchman, who is supposedly a french guy, and, to fill the current cliché, is quite adept in parcours. This one was really annoying, because during the run of the story he survives explosions, car crashes, falls from high buildings and being smashed into rigid objects at 50 mph. So McClane's fighting superman this time, huh? It's obvious that they tried to fill Karl's shoes from the first movie, but they failed. All the other characters look really pale and weakly developed in comparison to previous installments of the franchise, sidekicks included. The last thing that I did not like in this movie is are some of the action scenes. Sure, they are huge and they had to do something with the budget they had. But does it look like a "Die Hard" movie? Most of the time not. The action in many scenes is so far over the top, that it evokes more of a "yeah, right" than a "wow" feeling. Especially the fighter plane sequence comes to mind here.

So, what's the verdict? Is it unwatchable? No, certainly not. There were times when I had a lot of fun watching the movie. Is it a good movie? No, there are too many flaws for that. But it's not horrible either. And most importantly: is it a die hard movie? Sometimes. Willis IS McClane, which makes up for a good part of mediocre things in this movie, but the "Die Hard" feeling has faded a lot since parts 1 & 2 (and 3 for that matter, which was not so great also).

I give 6 out of 10.

Serenity (2005)

Cannot stand up to it's serialized form in any way

[6/10 · 25 December 2005]

As an introduction, I think I have to state that I liked Firefly, the TV show Serenity is based on, very much. In fact, it quickly became my very favourite show across all genres. So, as they cancelled it I was nothing less than angry, because I still cannot understand why the people in charge - be that the weekly viewers or the executives that in the end pulled the plug - did not see the immense potential that lay within this series. It was fresh, full of new ideas, full of interesting characters, with a fine ensemble cast and inspired screen writing. In short: a vast new universe to be explored with interesting worlds and people and - around that - stories to be told. Later, when I heard there would be an adaption for the big screen, I was worried if it might hold up to the very high mark the TV show set. There are too many characters, too many facts and to many relations that link them all together to fit in a two hour format. I feared if a Firefly movie would be produced, all the things that _make_ that show would be left behind to create kind of a "fast food" movie. Quickly paced, with colorful pictures and a nice bit of rumbling in the speakers, but ultimately without anything that lasts, without soul. Well, I saw it today and I have to say it came out just the way I feared it would. Quick popcorn action with all the kaboom one could ask for while shamelessly neglecting the essential factor: people. Don't't get me wrong: if you never saw Firefly, then I'm quite sure you will be adequately entertained. But that's really all there is. The result of this big screen portation is a sadly generic sci-fi flick of the more forgettable kind. Nothing left of the originality, freshness. Nothing of the interactions between the crewmembers that made the original concept so much better then its competitors. So, in the end, I am still left to lament the end of a great show that I loved so much and to notice, that maybe the last chance of saving the concept behind that all has been wasted. I think it couldn't have worked after all. Not as a movie format. Finally, I have to put the blame on the studio that cancelled the show, for not having enough faith in a new concept to let it grow an audience. All has to be quick money, so they prefer milking but the last drop out of worn-out concepts and dead ideas instead of making way for a new one. It's a damn shame. A damn shame.

The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)

Funny and entertaining, nothing more - but nothing less either.

[7/10 · 23 August 2005]

I've seen this movie slammed in previous ratings an comments pretty hard, but as I liked the TV series, I thought I'd give it a try. So I went to see it and, I have to say, was pleasantly surprised. Sure, it's brainless and yes the humor is quite crude, but so what? This movie is enormously entertaining and damn funny, too - if you let it. And it doesn't make the crucial mistake (that so many other comedies of a similar kind do) of trying to be serious, trying to post one of these currently so popular messages (be a better person - I can, and sure you know you can be too...yeah, right) or trying in any other way to not be what it is: right-in-your-face entertainment and fun.

So, for it to work watch it with your higher brain functions switched to zero and your mind set for fun and everything's fine.

So, therefore: 7/10

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Much worse than the first one

[2/10 · 28 September 2004]

Where the first "Resident Evil" did quite well in capturing the look and feel of the video games while also managing to score as a surprisingly good horror film, this second one fails in all points. Nothing is left of those creepy tunnels of the hive or the scare of zombies in the dark. Instead all is replaced by a whole city. Wisely used, this setting would work as well as the first one. Instead, the director uses it as a huge playground for stunt and demolition displays of the most uninspired kind. He really likes to break glass and blow stuff up. And he likes the female characters doing stupid and pointless matrix-like martial arts. Another point for criticism is the way this movie ist cut. Very often, the cuts are lightning-fast, jump around locations and would suit a music video much more than a horror movie. The same applies to the frequently used way to show moving zombies. It is a strobe-like visual effect that results in staccato movement of the zombies. For many visual and action elements of the movie, the director doesn't use own ideas, but seems to have watched quite a lot of action movies with similar content an tries to copy as best he can. Not much success here. Reading this, you might ask yourself: O.k., there are flaws in craftsmanship, but is there at least an interesting or in any way innovative story to it? Well, no.

Enough bashing now. So what is the recipe of the whole thing? Take the Resident Evil concept, strip it down to only the action parts of it, make up a generic story, stuff in two scanty-dressed heroines and a rubber monster, stir well and blow everything up. Done. If this works for you, you will be entertained. For me it didn't.

Rating: 2/10

Catwoman (2004)

Started out quite well, but...

[1/10 · 15 August 2004]

... then it turned out to be one of the worst flicks I ever saw. In the beginning, there was a quite nice build up of the characters, adequate acting, nice camerawork. 'Till the end of the first half our, I thought this movie might actually work. But then, exactly at the point where the character of "Patience" turns into Catwoman it mutates into what I think is best called a very long "Destiny's Child" music video. Together with the main character, everything else suddenly went down the drains. Left over was a sorry excuse for a story, horrible acting, absolutely ridiculous characters doing stupid things and some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. And don't get me started on these silly fight scenes! I guess they really thought it would be enough for the audience to see Halle Berry in an (actually quite stupid looking) tight catsuit. Well, it's not.

Rating:1/10 - avoid at all cost

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Senseless piece of crap

[1/10 · 6 January 2004]

This is by far the worst movie I've seen in quite some time, and I've seen a lot. Sure, on the surface it combines all you need for a decent horror flick: a herd of brainless teens (including the sexy chick with the wet and ripped T-Shirt), a strange and murderous inbreeding version of the Brady Bunch (including the result of said inbreeding which is usually the insane killer) and the standard horror film environment (including an impenetrable jungle with the house of horror in it in which the usual glass containers with eyes and fingers are loosely scattered). Well, most of these movies have kind of a story, try to be scary or even try to entertain you. This one has nothing. It tries to sell you such a poor excuse for a story it wasn't even funny anymore. It was all senseless hack'n'slay, and since there was no sense of horror, it quickly became boring.

Long story short: a waste of time and money. Avoid unless you are a fan of the hack and slay kind of movie with no need for a story.

Rating 1/10

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

Horrible

[1/10 · 20 August 2003]

People said, it would be better than part 1. Since I saw that one, I thought well, part 1 was o.k., and if this one is better, it might be quite entertaining. What I finally saw at the cinema is best described as an insult to the audience. Horrible acting (using Jolie only as a silly-stunt-performing hallstand for a variety of sexy outfits is an unforgivable waste of talent), dumb and predictable plot, quite mediocre special effects, and where the story got lost is to anyones guess. Tomb Raider being a popcorn/action-flick (as mentioned by some people) is absolutely no excuse for these severe flaws. Hopefully this has been the last one of the Tomb Raider movies.

1/10 - Game Over.

The Pool (2001)

Rarely seen such a funny movie

[2/10 · 24 September 2001]

For this movie, the genre indication says "horror/thriller", but if you want to see a thriller or teenage horror type of movie, you're completely wrong here. Although the producers really did their very best to steal and copy from all those "classic" teenage horror movies, they glued the parts together in such a ridiculous way, you can't help laughing out loud all the time. Then add how serious the movie tries to look. The whole cinema almost choked, laughing from one scene to the next. And what else? Lame story, terrible actors, stereotypic characters. Anyway. I absolutely recommend seeing this movie, not for the horror (what horror?), but for being one of the funniest (unintentional) genre parodies of the year.

I give 2 out of 10 for breathtaking laughter. Rated as the teenage horror movie it was intended to be, the movie would have a rating below zero.

Spy Kids (2001)

Shame on Rodriguez!

[1/10 · 3 September 2001]

Wow, this is a really bad movie! O.k., it's supposed to be a movie for kids, but is this a reason for a bad story development (this kind of story definitely had the potential to produce a good movie) and a huge mass of logical errors? I think not. And so did many kids that saw the movie, as I noticed afterwards. There are lots of good movies for children, but this one is definitely not one of them. We all know Rodriguez can do it better, at least in the "grown-ups-section". Maybe he should just keep his hands off of movies for children. Anyway, keep your hands off of this movie. You will regret if you don't.

Rating: 1 of 10, realistically seen still too high.

One Night at McCool's (2001)

Good actors in a disappointing story

[2/10 · 4 April 2001]

I saw this movie as a sneak preview, so I absolutely didn't know what's awaiting me. After knowing the cast I thought "o.k., this is a safe one and can't go wrong". But then - the movie. After 20 minutes of slight boredom I thought the movie might have had a weak start, but it never got any better. Unfortunately it got even worse. There was this constant impulse to leave the cinema - a feeling I rarely have when watching a movie. Nothing in this story can really catch your attention, you just don't care what's happening. Hence, there's just no character you sympathize with, no one you might not like. You just don't care. It's a pity to see the potential of actors like these wasted in a boring and uninteresting movie like that.

Only the ending saved it from the lowest rating. I rate 2/10.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

A masterpiece...

[9/10 · 29 January 2000]

When I came to the cinema to watch this movie, I knew nothing about it. This fact turned out to be ideal for watching this movie. On the first look, you don't really know where to put this film. Is it a thriller or a movie about the problems of a psychologist? In the middle you think its a really good horror-film. After all i think its a great mix of all that and this is the fact that makes this movie one of the best I have seen during the last years, both in the genre of thrillers an of psychological horror-films. One fact that makes this movie a great one is the end, which you wouldn't suggest. I won' tell anything about this or any other content of the movie, because this would destroy your experience. After the movie was over and I started to search for logical errors in it, but there weren't any. There not many movies of which you could say this, but this is one.

After all I have to say that this movie is a masterpiece and an absolutely must if you like psychological thrillers.