Change Your Image
vincent_tillema
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020)
This shouldn't be good...but it is
As a Dutchman I really wondered why. Why would you make a movie based on the Eurovision Songfestival? After all it is a weird thing 'we' do every year that 'nobody' really likes but we all take way too seriously. So when a bunch of Americans take on this event to make a movie it can only turn out to be as bad as many of the Dutch (or British) entries to the festival over the years. Right?
The answer is no. Because for some reason the director and actors actually understood what Eurovision is about better than they should. Maybe better than we Europeans do. Its in all the details. Like sending acts hoping they won't win so you don't have to host. People saying they hate the show but still demanding to watch it in a bar. The outright weird songs with their bizarre lyrics (even if songs have become far better over the past 2-3 years or so). The way the American tourists are treated in this movie is almost a meta thing for this movie.
The movie itself is simple but charming. A bit predictable but with great humor. There's sort of lightness to all of it that just makes it a joy to watch. Even if it drags a bit from time to time.
Ferrell and McAdams are cast perfectly even with their fake Icelandish accents that vary in thickness throughout the movie. This movie succeeds where a European production never could do. It captures the weirdness perfectly, turns everything up a notch and delivers some of the best songfestival hits ever. Its not a perfect movie but its actually better than the real deal!
Go watch it! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm back to listening to Ja Ja Ding Dong. Again.
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Don't worry, it's okay
Lets go straight to the main question: Is The Rise of Skywalker good?
Well...that depends. It's basically a piece of okay fanfiction with a billion dollar budget. Just like the previous ones. It does a lot of things wrong, will have you rolling your eyes and at the same time fires a million cool things at you as well.
The bad: There still is barely any character development outside of Kylo Ren. Rey's heritage is meh. There are lines that make writing in the prequels look almost Shakespearean. The story is waaaaaay too fast paced at first, leaving no room for anything other than "See this? Now check this!!!!!!". Force powers are once again laughably overpowered.
Worst of all: it doesn't really tell you a story. It presents you with a collection of set pieces where things happen, but there is little to no time to actually delve into a real story.
So how can it be good at the same time?
Well, once you accept the ST is not a cohesive thing and is best viewed as fanfiction you might be able to enjoy the insanity of it all. C3PO is amazing in this movie! If you ask me he is the best character in the entire movie. D-O is dope. Some mistakes of TLJ are 'fixed'. Everything looks slick as hell and the movie is one giant rollercoaster of all your childhood fantasies of what Star Wars is. See: fanfiction.
There are great nods to the past. Some things are retconned to make sense. It's just really enjoyable, even if you're able to see its flaws at the same time.
It's not cool as the Mandalorian. It's also not as boring as Solo. It's not the closing you were hoping for or what the series deserves, but its a pretty damn good time.
6.5/10
Midway (2019)
Mediocreway
What a missed opportunity! On one hand this movie has a great set up: a huge event that's easy to bring to film in a setting that's still somewhat overlooked when it comes to WW2 movies. It even manages to avoid the typical Pearl Harbor pitfalls and doesn't really bother with romantic subplots getting in the way of the main story. It's also a giant CGI fest that turns out pretty good. Mostly.
On the other hand...acting is bad. Like. Really bad. The first act in particular is horrible. The story is jumping all over the place, trying to make us care about way too many characters. The main character even manages to be an utterly unlikable Dick (pun intended) that walks around like he's the best thing the US has to offer. CGI also looks fake as hell in the first act. It's the sort of thing that'll pop up on an episode of the How Did This Get Made podcast.
Things sort of pick up in the second and third act with some impressive big fights but the story keeps on jumping around like it listened to Kriss Kross too much. The end is, of course, a giant Murica F Yeah eruption that had people during my viewing shaking their heads.
That might seem harsh, but maybe that's because there are the building blocks of a perfectly fine movie scattered all over the place. Better editing and storytelling would've made this movie genuinely good instead of mediocre.
Not that it isnt enjoyable so it's not a total warning to skip it. It's just... Meh.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Welcome to Jurassic World
As a longtime, hardcore Jurassic fan it's hard to be completely objective when it comes to these movies. Or to refrain from going into too many details for that matter. It might also be difficult to please a fan like me and for it to be all too easy to disappoint me.
Let's just go to that straight away: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom didn't disappoint me.
The Jurassic series is in a bit of a weird position. The Park series and the World series are sort of similar, all take place in the same universe with shared characters, themes and plot points...and yet they're also completely different beasts. World at times feels like what would happen if directors less capable than Spielberg would adapt Crichton's Jurassic Park novel. They're different takes on things we've seen before. Sometimes better. Sometimes worst. Overall they're still fun rides, even though they never reach that stellar level of the first Jurassic Park. The question is: do they need to? Even Spielberg himself couldn't surpass the first movie and we must not forget JP was a milestone in moviemaking that was truly new in terms of immersion due to realistic CGI. Recapturing what made JP great is almost recapturing the entire context of it.
So where JW imitated JP to entertaining but sometimes silly and campy degrees, Fallen Kingdom (FK) imitates The Lost World for the most part. But: it does manage to be a lot more refreshing that JW was and does have its own identity. There are plenty of references to the granddaddy of the series. Unlike in JW they're fairly subtle this time around and maybe will only be noticed by hardcore fans. For instance, when the new character Zia (Daniella Pineda) first sees a dinosaur she sees a brachiosaurus. Sounds familiar? And then there are plenty of little things like dinosaurs taking on iconic poses from JP and even The Lost World that go by so fast you might miss them.
FK is fairly light on story. There are plenty of points that feel illogical but mostly the movie doesn't give you time to think about the wrongs. What is there in terms of story isn't bad however. Its serviceable I guess. There is some debate on how the dinosaurs are now victims instead of villains...but they've always been that in a way. They were never supposed to be there in the first place as in the first movie already discusses. Emphasizing that in FK really was the only way to go I think. And, in a time where we're struggling with genetics to prevent the northern white rhino from going extinct, are working on reverse engineering chickens to dinosaurs and planning to recreate mammoths, FK asks the question: should we even prevent extinction and if so: aren't those animals then free to live outside of cages? And: who is to decide on that? The latter might cause some facepalms from what I read in other reviews but I thought it was a clever thing to do.
Bits of such moral dilemmas are sprinkled throughout FK. The real show stealer is J.A. Bayona however who truly knows how to make dinosaurs scary again. His use of light and dark results in many amazing plays with shadow and builds tension when we see dinosaurs stalking unsuspecting humans. He heavily relies on animatronics which make the Indoraptor but many of the close ups look believable and intimidating. That's something the series hasn't had in a long time. Bayona just knows how to frame a shot. If you liked the T-rex escape and kitchen scenes from JP and the Rex attack on the RV and 'Tall grass' scenes from TLW you're in for a treat here. Bayona takes that darker style and slight sense of suspence and cranks it up a notch. This results in one of the best opening scenes in the series for instance. The acting is also serviceable, nothing amazing but not bad or distracting.
Look: FK is not without its flaws. As I said: there are plot holes, some characters don't really work that well and it might be a bit more depending on taste movies and genres than other movies in the series. There's always something bigger to rescue characters from the big dino and the humor is hit and miss. But that's something to expect from a World movie: more silliness, more extremes. Expect that and you're good. Expect Jurassic Park and you'll be disappointed.
7.5/10
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
Star Wars: The Hard Reset
Where to start with The Last Jedi? Probably by stating the obvious for anybody who has seen or will see the movie: it will be the most divisive movie in the series. Even more so than the prequels or The Force Awakens. It might be the, sometimes almost slapstick level of, humor for some and for others how the Force itself is cranked up to insane levels. Maybe even the fact that, looking at the story objectively, The Last Jedi is quite straight forward and empty.
And yet somehow it ended up being a great movie to me.
Small disclaimer: I did not like TFA. At all. Primary reason being the rehashing of all plot lines and storybeats, but also most of the new characters being hyped by everybody and then turning out to be shallow (Phasma, Kylo, Finn etc). TLJ seems to be very conscious of the legacy of TFA and Star Wars in general and manages to do several hard resets, some of which will shock you, leave you cheering and others still have me thinking about whether or not I like what I saw.
Storywise the movie is straightforward, with minor spoilers ahead. Resistance gets followed by First Order...just outside their reach and our main heroes go one sidequests to help the Resistance get away. Things don't go as you think they will. A lot of people and Star Wars myths die and then its over. It almost covers an entire trilogy worth of stories in a single movie, leaving Ep. IX to start with a clean sheet.
The things I like:
- Surprise cameos
- Humor...porgs are surprisingly funny as is BB-8
- Bringing back some of that prequel space opera flavour on Canto Bight as well as the war vibes of Rogue One.
- Visually a stunning movie
- There are some truly amazing lightsaber battles and a particularly awesome moment during a space battle. That scene with Snoke....wow.
- Characters such as Rey and Poe suddenly aren't dull anymore, Rosie is a nice and sweet addition to the cast...some other dull characters meet their ends.
The things I didn't like:
- Going all Super Sayan on the Force...sometimes it works, sometimes its absolutely ridiculous (you instantly know what scene I mean), sometimes it is such an over the top spectacle you're left wondering why none of the old Jedi Order could do this and prevent Palpatine from even doing what he did.
- First Order still is incredibly incompetent. Including Kylo. They're not ruthless, they're incompetent, simple as that.
- Biggest problem is one that many modern blockbusters have: they don't explain their context enough. I mean: the First Order controls the galaxy...but only has a relatively minor fleet and seems to be nowhere as present as the Republic or even the Empire was. Why is the Rebellion now the Resistance? Who is Snoke? Where does he fit within the ashes of the Empire. Despite some nice story nods to morally grey areas, I'd rather see the universe-scale that the prequels had return and put everything in context.
Overall though: I think its a great movie. Not nearly on the level of the Empire Strikes Back. But better than TFA, most prequels and even ROTJ. Then again: it also still has me going back and forth thinking whether or not I truly enjoyed everything about it. Bottom line is: I haven't been enjoying a Star Wars movie in a theatre for a very long time. And I guess that counts for something.
I'd say: 8/10.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
A New Hope for Star Wars
One can argue that a new Star Wars title is bound to disappoint, be it from the bitter taste the prequels left or from the inevitable hype train that raises expectations to unrealistic levels. Unfortunately, The Force Awakens also falls into the same trappings that have plagued this series ever since The Empire Strikes back.
To make things clear: The Force Awakens (TFA) is a great movie and definitely better and more coherent that Eps. I and II. It has the look and feel of the originals and that goes a long way in terms of nostalgia. Growing up on the prequels ('88 kid), I never thought of them as horrible. More like mediocre (Ep. I), bad (Ep. II) and pretty awesome (Ep. III). My fear was TFA being my generation's Ep. 1. Fortunately: it isn't. Not by far.
While discarding the expanded universe it is clear Disney and JJ Abrams have been snooping around the old material and have crafted a fresh start for the post-Vader movies. A New Hope this is indeed. As a whole it succeeds in being that new hope. This is Star Wars as we expect it to be: a grand scale, the sense of things being around for ages (little effects like dents in speeders, smoke clouds when started up etc) and the perfect blend of practical effects and CGI. The pacing is great and each introduction of familiar characters is bound to be met with childlike excitement. Quite simply: it isn't a dull movie.
That being said: this is also a movie relying too much on plot lines a little bit too familiar from the original series. That on it's own isn't too much of a flaw but it also 'fails' on some other levels. Stormtroopers for instance are finally introduced as a menacing army...before being degraded to comic relief characters on par with the Ep. 1 Battle Droids. And while likely a hot topic in today's social climate, it has to be said the female lead is both a relief and worst offender to this movie. Rey is a great character who very much feels natural as the leading role for these new movies. She feels as one of us: at awe of the wonders of the SW universe. At the same time her strength as a leading character is somewhat tainted by the overly noticeable 'Disney-girl power' trope that is popular these days. Without going into spoilers: her character has an eye-rollingly quick learning ability for things that used to take a few movies leading up to one of the more unlikely lightsaber duels in the entire series. Her knowledge of the Millennium Falcon being better than that of Han Solo, although never having been on board before is another example of her being great at everything, at once. Lastly: some characters really lack some serious screen time, which is a shame.
Overall this is a very strong movie that does more good than bad. The flaws aren't nearly as bad as the message boards suggest, although the character of Rey does feel forced in a few ways. The latter will likely vary from person to person I suspect.
A New Hope indeed...even if it means hoping that Ep. 8 will be on par with the originals. This one falls somewhere between RoTJ and RoTS. A solid start for what's to come the next few years.
8/10
Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)
Decent attempt at updating classic Bond tropes.
I went into Kingsman without any knowledge of this movie other than having seen the trailer once and knowing it was leaning towards the corny and cheesy character of the classic Bond movies. A concept that has been tried many times before, but even when done bad still results in pretty fun to watch movies.
Kingsman does many things better than Bond spoofs like Austin Powers or the abysmal Johnny English and a large part of that is due to the actors used in this movie. Jackson and Firth play their roles like they should with Jackson being quite hilarious. The main 'teen' actors aren't annoying as well, which was a big relief.
Storywise this movie makes as little sense as the more out-there Bond movies. To be honest: I already forgot its plot mostly. Not that it matters: its simply a vehicle for a few pretty big action scenes. One of which, in a church, is quite spectacular.
When it comes down to it however, Kingsman doesn't quite offer the thrill of a Bond movie. Worse is the fact that at one point it becomes too reliant (and too self aware) of it's Bond inspiration. To the point of a cringe-worthy joke that involves Bond, Bourne and Bauer being mentioned explicitly. This over abundance of Bond related themes and jokes isn't Kingsman's biggest flaw though. As spectacular and brutal as some action scenes are, they are sometimes nauseating to watch do to annoying camera work and some of the worst CGI I've seen in a major cinema movie in a long time. We rightfully criticize The Hobbit for this, but Kingsman is an even worse offender of bad CGI usage. This more than often gives the brutal action a bit too much of a cartoony, very 'Kick-Ass' feel. It could've been cartoony-Expendable-esque action, instead its Tom and Jerry with blood and bad effects.
That's not saying there are no fun moments in this movie. There are quite a few. Taken as a whole however, this movie just didn't deliver. Nor does it proof the classic-Bond formula still works. It's Kick-Ass influences and over the top humor make it a thing of its own; gadgets and women or not. It's simply a high paced, bit too self aware and slapstick-humor variation of some classic spie movie tropes.
6/10
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
Fitting finale
The Battle of the Five Armies finally closes the biggest and most epic fantasy series to ever hit the big screen. And it does so in a fitting way: grand, epic and making the last connections to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
The usual gripes of the Hobbit trilogy are still there: too much CGI, too little story mainly. But just like the Desolation of Smaug this is mostly forgiven by the way Jackson has once again managed to make everything work together. It doesn't feel as 'real' as LotR did, but by now we've come accustomed to the leading Ork villains being CGI characters. Unfortunately, in high frame rate resolution the CGI can be a bit clunky and fake. And if BotFA makes one thing clear, it is that this series should've never been a trilogy. Half of the first movie could've been cut, Smaug and the actual battle could've been one movie. Alas, that's not what happened.
Does that mean BotFA is a disappointment, victim of a story stretched too thin? No. All story there is serves to set up one of the biggest battles we've seen in the series, including LotR. One that is sure to excite. The finale on a misty and icy tower especially ranks among the best set pieces in Jackson's take on the series. Underlying themes of dragon's greed, akin to LotR's One Ring obsession work well and show a Thorin Oakenshield that grows ever more insane.
Smaug's short presence in this movie is sweet, but in the end made me wish his story would've been either wrapped up in the previous movie or be bigger in this one. A great character with so much screen presence, and a shame to only be in here for a few minutes.
There actually is a lot of great humor as well. And big surprise: it isn't even distracting! Right- hand to Laketown's ruler, Alfrid, especially has some great scenes. Although I can imagine people disliking him. Personally, I feel he was a great addition, just like some of the Dwarf fighting and the new uses of the Cave Trolls.
Meeting up with the Shire for once last time, finally, was a bit emotional. A sort of cinematic homecoming after all these years. A sense of the peril in Middle Earth finally being over. And while BotFA isn't perfect and certainly has its flaws (most of which are true for all 3 Hobbit movies) it is a fitting finale to a fun and entertaining trilogy.
8/10
Interstellar (2014)
Interstellar reaches for the stars but doesn't quite reach them.
Interstellar is a movie that is a bit rare these days. Not only for its subject matter; the very cold and philosophical sci-fi perspective, but for the fact it kept itself secret for so long. For the first time in years did a blockbuster come by that wasn't fully spoiled in the trailers. And that pays off in the end.
To keep the premise short: Earth is doomed and former-astronaut-turned-farmer Cooper finds himself being an astronaut again after a bit of a too-coincidental event that places him in the middle of a top secret NASA operation. Cooper and crew go through a wormhole and then starts the game of deciding what is more important: saving time to be able to see their families if they make it back, or leave everything behind and colonize one of three potentially habitable planets.
An intriguing scenario. Visually Interstellar knocks it out of the park: sterile shots of space and shots harking back to days of crappy stop-motion effects place a very 70's sci-fi mark on the movie. Music is superb and acting in the lead roles is great. In many respects, and this isn't an original remark but still..., this movie is 2001: A Space Odyssee 2.0.
And that is also where its flaws stem from. Whereas 2001 had a real philosophical weight to it, I personally never really felt the urgency in Interstellar was truly important. There is some scientific explaining that feels like the 'just throw around some sci-fi slang' trope, which kind of ruins the immersiveness of the otherwise great movie. Many people praised the movie for the emotional weight it carries between Cooper and his daughter. Me? I didn't feel it. As a kid yes, and there is one scene that does to the relation trouble justice. But in the end the thing felt a bit hollow.
Maybe that is a side effect of Spielberg's legacy on this movie. Something that is a very positive thing in the rest of the 3 hours you'll watch Interstellar. There are the classic Spielberg shots: kids gazing into the distance, and most of all a great sense of wonder and excitement of going somewhere new. The real Nolan touch comes at the very end when he pulls a bit of an "Inception" and plays with time travel a bit.
Overall Interstellar is an absolute joy to watch. A visually strong movie with strong leading roles and an interesting plot. There is little wrong about it...only that in my opinion it has set the bar too high for itself to reach it. It lacks the philosophical weight and emotional urgency it strives for, being a tad hollow in the end.
Still: one of the best movies of this year and a definite watch for sure!
8/10
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Easy on the eye, but boring affair.
Reviewing a comic book adaptation always is a tricky affair. With the rise of comic book movies over the past 10 years or so we've seen a genre appear that without exception almost always spawns overrated movies. I am sure this review will receive a lot of flak for not praising this movie as much as others do.
I'm not a comic book fan. Never read any of them but some of the movies are good popcorn entertainment or just good movies (X-Men series or the Dark Knight movies even though those too are slightly overrated). Being disappointed by Marvel movies most of the time I still decided to give GotG a shot. Reason being: I love sci-fi and having a cinema subscription meant free entry, so why not?
Let's start with the good stuff. First and foremost are the looks. GotG simply looks great. It's been a while since we've seen a sci-fi galaxy that looks as if people actually live here. It's surely not D9 or Elysium kind of worn looks, but it does look grimy and filthy nonetheless. As far as characters go the main villain has a good screen presence most of the movie and Rocket and Groot (basically a Space-Ent from LotR) are nice characters. There also is a certain 'lightness' in the story that I think most people will enjoy. Let me just put it this way: GotG takes more than one cue from the original Star Wars movie, spices it up with some space-Indiana Jones, Mass Effect and sci-fantasy Thor looks and that works most of the time.
Where it doesn't work is a thing most Marvel movies go wrong: character development, the main villain, and CGI. We are supposed to care about this ragtag group of outlaws, but over the course of the movie they never really have a believable character development. Take the Gamora for instance (who I thought was just space-Wicked Witch). She's introduced as a bad guy...and the next second she's on screen she's suddenly betraying people and being good. Completely out of nowhere. Then there is the main character's nemesis/space daddy: Space-Merle. Who basically is just a blue version of Walking Dead's Merle...who we are to somewhat care about for story's sake but nothing he does makes a connection with the audience. These guys hate each other but over the course of 2 days they're suddenly 'best friends' who want die for each other. That would've been all fine and dandy if there was any character development. Since there is none this plot point is just too predictable in a bad way. Just like romance or certain characters being in danger/possibly dying is both predictable from the start and hollow due to no character development.
Now, you might ask yourself "why is he calling him Space-Merle and the other characters Space- Wicked Witch etc?". Well: point 2 of things Marvel movies keep failing at: throwing around weird names all the time from minute 1. This universe hasn't been set up yet in cinemas but we're supposed to know exactly what everybody is taking about. Way too much unconnected info if you're not into the comics themselves.
Onto the main villain. Quite a few recent Marvel movies have had a recurring problem. Being: a main villain that looks cool but packs no punch whatsoever. Thor 2 had such a hollow villain for instance, and GotG has one as well. Thanos is just a cameo that is somehow connected to the main villain, Super-Sith-guy, but how and why is barely mentioned. He's a religious zealot, bound on destroying a civilization. Problem is: we never see him destroy anything. Why should we be scared? Besides: for a galaxy that looks lived in and worn, it sure does a poor job of actually being alive. Characters on screen are just there to be killed and all look alike. An even worse thing is the fact that this 'great civilization' that needs to be saved is just one big city we only see from 2 perspectives (market square and from the sky). There is no connection for us viewers to that city. Why should we care if it gets destroyed?
Lastly: while the CGI is great there are moments where you get the archetypical side character being a CGI creation and sticking out from the actual people a bit too much. Happens to most movies, so no big deal. But the whole reliance on CGI results in a lack of tension. There is no real fire. Actors just duck before a green screen. Explosions are not real. There is no sense of danger. Expendables 3 was hurt by too much CGI and this movie (and movies like the Avengers) as well. CGI means the craziest things can and do happen on screen, but because it is fake and we know it, it all feels so incredibly hollow.
Add in some stupid things like surviving in space without a pressure suit/helmet and an Orb that is pretty random in who it destroys and I was unfortunately disappointed by what I saw.
There are some fun moments. There are some funny jokes. The music is pretty decent, has a nice contrast to the universe it takes place in (the same kind of contrast chanting monks had in Halo) but its not my cup of tea.
The entire experience was just hollow and shallow. How this has a 8.4 is something I just don't understand. I've seen a review on these boards saying this was this generation's Star Wars. I'm not saying this movie is bad. I thought it was really boring but I see the appeal for others. But the praise it receives, being compared to Star Wars, is nothing more than a confirmation of my earlier mention of this being overrated.
6.5/10
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)
Surprisingly fun!
Many words have been spoken about how Michael Bay would tear trough the Turtles as he did with Transformers. Many hours have been spend discussing how this movie would be complete and utter crap. How Megan Fox shouldn't be in it. How explosions would ruin it. How basically everything would go wrong.
I'm not going into that here. Instead let me just draw this to a personal perspective. You see, I am a TMNT fan. I was that little boy back in the early 90's that identified himself as Raphael. Who called his dad Splinter and who, when his youngest brother was born, told his grandmother the boy's name was Michelangelo which caused great confusion. In other words: the cartoon TV series was my childhood and although I had some comic books somewhere in my room I was just drawn in by the series and by the toys. Flash forward about 20 years, and that is still my nostalgic little idea of the Turtles: cartoon and toys. I haven't seen the latest series. I don't like the style: its something for this generation, not mine.
So yes: I was skeptic going into this movie. Who wouldn't with Bay's track record? 2 hours ago I stepped into the theater expecting nothing. What I got was not a great movie. It was however a movie that did capture the goofiness of the 'original' Turtles and delivered quite a few laughs. It does a lot of things right: being goofy, referring and mocking other superheroes, great Turtle designs, being lighthearted, great chemistry between the Turtle bros, and forgive my bias but Raphael...just wow.
That's not to say it is without flaws. Far from! The biggest flaw is already evident for me now. I just got back home and I don't even remember what Shredder's big evil plan was all about. New York isn't really portrayed as a living, breathing city. Instead it is filled with cardboard people who just pass along anonymously. Add to this the lack of urgency in Shredder's plan and the result is a story you just don't care for. Shredder has another flaw: he basically is a dude in a life sized Swiss army knife costume with no real connection to Splinter. Changing that back story was unnecessary. Lastly: the movie is a bit too clean for my taste. I prefer the gritty 80's/90's vibe the comics and the first movie had.
Then again: that vibe was typical of the era. The whole 'dark city filled with 80's punk rock thugs' vibe movies like Terminator, Predator 2 and the likes (including the first Turtles movie) had is long gone. Besides: Shredder's plan sucked, but we're talking about a guy one of whose first plans in the cartoon was to destroy the Turtles by sending pest-control robots at Splinter...It is not as if he has showcased any great intellect in the past.
Take this movie as it is: a simple joyride not to be taken too seriously. Expect just that and you'll be enjoyed. Go the Turtle-fanboy path and you're bound to be disappointed. My inner child was satisfied!
As for the sequel: a better story, less flirting from Mikey, introduce Bebop and Rocksteady and have Shredder be more down to Earth.
Flaws aside, this was a nice step in the right direction for these Turtles!
7/10
De poel (2014)
'De Poel' tries, but fails to be a fun watch.
We Dutch have a rich history of making movies with that typical 'Dutch mark'. Something that's hard to identify but somehow always involves nudity, swearing, a bit wooden acting and a sense of humor that is very much Dutch. Lacking budgets of, say Hollywood, Dutch cinema always has fairly low production values. Even compared to British, Scandinavian or French movies, Dutch movies alway fall short of outstanding quality. Which, even for me as a Dutchman, makes them hard to like.
Sometimes you need to give them a chance however. And with 'De Poel' (The Pond) being somewhat of a revival of the 'Nether-Horror' genre I thought I'd put my prejudice aside and give it a try. Dutch media outlets praise the movie, but to me (and I guess my fellow movie goers in the cinema) it failed miserably.
'De Poel' follows two families going on a camping vacation in a forbidden part of a Dutch nature reserve. They set up camp next to a pond, and sure enough: s--- hits the fan. The build up of tension is decent, and the main actors (the younger actors barely have any lines to work with) act quite naturally which is a relief for a Dutch movie. The tension between husband and wife is actually quite enjoyable. Mom blaming dad for being stubborn and relying on technological 'toys' instead of a good old analogue compass is fun and recognizable. There are some nice scenic shots too. That's where the goods end.
'De Poel' fails to be scary. Overly stylized shots from the perspective of 'the threat' distract and only serve to reinforce something is wrong...again, and again, and again. There is some gore, including cutting off a finger. Which is followed by the character almost ignoring his missing finger just an hour later... The story doesn't explain anything, and only barely hints at the cause of the trouble.
The Netherlands has a history of prehistoric human sacrifices in bogs and marshes which this movie hints at, but never fully embraces. There's something about the virginity of 'the sacrifice' which made me fear they would actually go as far as having an awkward forced sex scene to prevent that sacrifice from happening...luckily 'De Poel' doesn't take it there. Instead: 'De Poel' simply becomes a snore fest best to be ignored completely.
During my screening the crowd would laugh at the movie all the time, would critique it all the time and everybody walked out saying "what a terrible movie." The worst thing is 'De Poel' had potential, but in the end feels like something a film school graduate should be proud of. Nothing cinema worthy. And to be quite frank: nothing worth your time and money. So once again: Dutch cinema fails to impress and falls flat on its face.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Not quite as good as Casino Royale, but still amazing.
After reading some mixed reviews about QoS, I went to the cinema fearing the worst, and came back with a big smile on my face.
Well first of all let me say this. It isn't quite as good as CR was. It slightly lacks depth and length. On the other hand, this feels like the most "Bourne-like" Bond so far, while also having some really unique visual styles we haven't seen before in Bond movies. It might look like Bourne at times, but its not. Its better, well, different.
QoS picks up right where CR stopped, and puts the viewer in the middle of what must be one of the best car-chase scenes ever. First comparison with Bourne, because it is the same thing as we have seen in the Bourne trilogy. But, it is better, harder and more intense. The way those poor little Alfa Romeo's meet their end against either trucks or down in a ravine is just spectacular. The foot-chase scene that follows delivers the same thrills again. It mixes two events that don't seem to be connected, but who come to a climax at the same time. You have to see this, but it works really well. The fighting scene in the opera house does the same this. Its beautifully filmed, very un-bondesque. Sounds get dull, shots of two events switch constantly and the camera-work is top notch.
This movie sees Bond at his rawest, while still keeping him emotional at some occasions. Without trying to spoil too much, the scenes with Mathis are good examples. Craig really delivers one of the best Bonds so far, again.
The climax of the movie is not quite what you expect it to be. Its still awesome, but it felt a little bit empty. There are more downsides to this movie. Greene is not that big of a villain as he should be. Some small things show off his evil, but he never seems like a big threat. The constant switching of locations in the first half of the movie also seems too forced.
From the scene's I mentioned before, to the unique "where are we?" shots (well unique in terms of style for a Bond movie), this movie is really well filmed. The scene in the opera house might well be the highlight of this movie. We finally get to see Bond do some proper spy-work, while the high pace of the movie isn't turned down. The movie leaves very few questions open, but a third movie in this story can certainly be made.
So in the end this is a Bond film you might not like instantly. Reverences to Goldfinger etc, are nice for older fans. But it feels different from earlier Bond movies. More like a action movie than The Dark Night did, with all respect, less of a Bond movie than Casino Royale did, and like a better version of Bourne. More depth in terms of story would have been nice. I sincerely hope the director stays for the next movie. He should take a look at Casino Royale and mix its best parts with this movie.
So, with two "new" Bond style movies, I can say Bond is back for good. Its down to earth again, believable, hard yet emotional at time. Yes the slapstick is gone, but I don't miss Q. I didn't even miss the barrel-scene, I didn't miss the Bond, James Bond phrase. This Bond is different, and its Bond at its best.
9/10
The Dark Knight (2008)
Good but not perfect.
I went to this movie expecting...well nothing really. I'm not a big fan of Batman but only went to see this movie because of all the hype. And to be honest, I think the hype in this case really put this movie at an undeserved #1 spot on IMDb. As far as the story goes etc, I won't discuss that deeply as many others have done that before. I liked it. I really liked it a lot. OK, so the first 30 minutes its hard to keep track of everything because of these little 2 minute scenes and constant switches to different characters. And in the end, things get a bit predictable and boring. However, the predictability isn't that bad, it actually works fine. But come on, if I (who hasn't read a single Batman comic, and hasn't seen a single TV show or whatever) can predict Harvey becoming Two-Face then that says enough about how the story progresses. The last 30 minutes aren't that good too. As far as I'm concerned, this is where the story loses its realistic feel. Hacking into all cellphones? The lame CGI use when Batman uses his special view, and just cheap special effects on Two-Face kinda spoiled it for me at this point.
But that's all that I can say was bad about this movie. The camera-work is perfect. From being just normal most of the time, to absolutely frantic when Joker is on the screen, this is excellent filming. Joker truly is the star of this movie. I've never seen a character quite like him on screen. Every little thing he does fits him perfectly. His real strength lies in how he is just here to cause chaos without a motive.
All in all The Dark Knight is 2008's best movie. I didn't feel really bored any second, apart from the unnecessary inclusion of Two-Face and his finale in my opinion. In the end, this movie is the perfect example how just normal action/comic movies can be much, much better than the current standard, but it can not compete with almost every movie in the top 10 on this site.