Fred_Mopkopf Reviews

Supernova (I) (2000)

There's a solid movie hiding somewhere in there that will never see the light of day

[7/10 · 3 November 2023]

This is gonna be a short one: For all you sci-fi buffs out there, you probably know the wild behind-the-scenes drama this movie went through, the reason why the trailer was way off the mark, and that feeling of, well, emptiness it leaves you with after watching. There's however one noteworthy detail to you young people out there ☺, particularly in this era of streaming: on my old DVD copy, there are some deleted scenes that could've made the film better. Why Mr. Coppola decided to leave them out (and not some other stuff) to 'save' the film, we'll never really figure out. I've always had a soft spot for this flick, and I still believe there's a solid movie hiding somewhere in there, waiting to be discovered. But I guess we'll never live to see it.

Red Planet (2000)

The better of the two mars films of 2000

[7/10 · 2 November 2023]

'Red Planet' doesn't seem to be a fan favorite, but if you haven't seen it and like sci-fi, there are some hidden gems worth exploring. It offers a mix of amiable actors, stunning visuals, and a captivating mood that pulls you into its storyline. The subplot involving the Amee robot and the simmering distrust among the male crew members adds an extra layer of depth to the narrative. Director Antony Hoffman's unique vision comes across, and the inclusion of Carrie Ann Moss of 'Matrix' fame, brings a touch of familiarity. However, be ready for the film to occasionally indulge a bit too much in a jock mentality. And towards the end, the plot takes a somewhat outlandish turn with the Russian probe, which might seem a tad goofy (a pity, because in large oarts the film even flirts with hard sci-fi) but intriguingly foreshadows a concept later explored in 'The Martian.' The film does reveal its age with conversations about website clicks, as of crouse nobody saw social media coming. The visual effects hold up remarkably well, despite what naysayers might claim; the portrayal of fire in the vacuum of space is particularly noteworthy as one of the first truly convincing depictions in film. Now, the score, while decent, occasionally strays too far into poppy territory, taking away from the overall cinematic experience.

The film's trailer, unfortunately, undersells the true essence of the movie, resulting in a rather lackluster promotional effort - that shouldn't keep you from watching it. So 'Red Planet' manages to keep its audience engaged, delivering a suspenseful experience. Among the two Mars-themed films released in 2000, 'Red Planet' emerges as the more captivating and intriguing choice.

Die 1000 Glotzböbbel vom Dr. Mabuse (2018)

Incredibly good in its own right AND considering the poor original it's based on

[9/10 · 2 November 2023]

This film is undeniably a challenging one to assess. On the surface, it appears as a straightforward and unremarkable mockbuster of the fandub variety-a genre not yet officially defined for the big screen. It draws its inspiration from Fritz Lang's final work, 'The 1000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse.' If you don't speak German, and especially the Swabian dialect in which it's dubbed, this film might not be worth your time. Subtitles wouldn't be of much help either.

However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the singular individual behind this project left no stone unturned. The film brims with subtle alterations to the original source material, as well as an abundance of intricate and clever details that leave one in awe. Without a doubt, this film stands as a testament to artistic ingenuity. Yet, it's not without its flaws, and a nagging sense persists that its imperfections are rooted in Lang's '1000 Eyes.' So, why opt for this particular film? Let's delve into that question.

Dominik Kuhn, the mastermind behind this film, has ascended to a modest level of recognition in Germany for his unique brand of creative work. His signature involves crafting short fandubs-taking original content and entirely reimagining it with fresh dialogue in Swabian dialect. In real life, Kuhn is a filmmaker, and in 2006, he commenced sharing his uproarious creations on YouTube under the alias 'Dodokay.' It didn't take long for his videos - which he affectionately dubs 'Dodokay Remix' - to become viral sensations.

It's important to note that the humor in his films may elude those unfamiliar with the German language, let alone the distinct Swabian dialect he exclusively employs. Kuhn's exceptional talent shines through as he lends his voice to all characters, including the female roles (and for the skeptics, there's a 'making of' feature on the Blu-Ray and DVD to prove it). His ability to seamlessly blend technical and artistic prowess with humor and incisive social commentary places him among the best in the field. He has evolved into a full-fledged comedian in his own right, complete with live performances, though these are, of course, confined to Germany. Given his trajectory, it was only a matter of time before he graced us with a full-length fandub.

Referring to '1000 Glotzböbbel' as merely a fandub barely scratches the surface. As a devoted enthusiast of 'Die 1000 Augen des Dr. Mabuse', Fritz Lang's original film that serves as the foundation for this creation, I can assure you that Kuhn has left no stone unturned in crafting something entirely fresh. The film not only boasts a completely revamped soundtrack, encompassing foley, sound effects, and music, which imbues it with a new, humorous narrative, but it has also undergone a comprehensive re-edit and a transformation into Cinemascope. Remarkably, Kuhn achieves all of this without erasing the original's distinctive ambiance.

Undeniably, the concept isn't entirely novel. Since the dawn of the internet, numerous claims have surfaced regarding the invention of the fandub. Most of these claims are inaccurate. Arguably, the first fandub can be attributed to Woody Allen with his 1968 creation, 'What's Up Tiger Lily.' The French adopted a similar approach in 1973 with 'La dialectique peut-elle casser des briques?' using the Japanese film 'Tang shou tai quan dao.' The resemblance to Woody's work is undeniable. The Russians also ventured into this territory with 'Nochnoi Bazar', based on 'Nochnoi Dozor', although it was exclusively on DVD. Afterward, there seemed to be a lull, at least in terms of theatrical releases, until Dodokay's film.

Let me reiterate: whether one enjoys the film or not, Dodokay has refined this approach to perfection. I had the privilege of watching it in the theater in 2018, and the other day I re-wachted it for the second time on Blu-Ray. On each occasion, I was astounded by the meticulous attention to detail, a facet that fully unravels if one possesses an intimate familiarity with the original material. Yet, this leads us to one of the film's two primary drawbacks: A) It grapples with the limitations of the original, prompting one to question Kuhn's choice of source material, and B) Translating this principle from YouTube shorts to a feature-length film was inherently - and predictably - challenging.

I recall stumbling upon a 2018 review of the film in a German newspaper, written by a well-known movie critic who, quite frankly, was a notrious know-it-all and hater of filmmakers. In that review, the critic contended, "Kuhn's version has no more inner logic compared to the original." However, the reality is quite the contrary: Kuhn's rendition exudes a far more logical and coherent structure than Lang's original. I'm not alone in my assessment that 'The 1000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse' is one of Fritz Lang's lesser works, if not his weakest. It feels like a convoluted muddle, leaving one with the lingering suspicion that external forces or studio interference contributed to its underwhelming narrative quality (you can read my review on IMDB).

Dodokay, on the other hand, managed to craft a vastly more satisfying version. His approach isn't rooted in mockery of the original; quite the opposite. It's as if he channeled Fritz Lang's spirit, and one can't help but speculate that this is what the film might have resembled had Lang been afforded the opportunity to create a director's cut.

Setting aside personal preferences regarding the film, the execution is so impeccable that you not only forget you're listening to the voice of a single individual but also that you're watching a fandub. Your brain requires a gentle nudge every ten minutes to remind you of these facts. His voice acting transcends the standard German dubbing fare. It's evident that he meticulously reimagined the entire sound design (the credits affirm that he did this himself), resulting in a plethora of auditory Easter eggs. The beeps from Mabuse's basement blast door are plucked from 'Space: 1999,' while the background ambiance in Gekeler's room echoes 'Alien' and 'Blade Runner,' among others. Oh, and the score is an original composition by a talented individual named Dennis Le Rose, who, I'm confident, we'll be hearing more from in the future.

The humor in the film is undeniably amusing, provided you possess a grasp of the German language and an appreciation for Swabian references. There's room for improvement, but I'll return to that point. The narrative, completely distinct from Lang's original, follows a story in which the Swabians invent the internet, and one nefarious character seeks to harness it for world domination, flooding it with 'Maultaschen,' the quintessential Swabian dish. Dominik Kuhn interweaves numerous intelligent references to the modern world and societal themes. He reimagines the traditional damsel in distress as a strong, self-reliant character, all the while offering a critique of social media, the very platform that catapulted him to fame.

The comedy could have been elevated, but the original film's narrative timing undoubtedly plays a role in this regard. Kuhn undertook substantial re-editing and even introduced new sequences he shot himself, cleverly incorporated to compensate for elements absent in Lang's original, such as establishing shots and reverse angles.

So all this prompts a pressing question: why did he opt for this flawed source material? I grant it an 9 out of 10 because I can't shake the feeling that there may have been superior options for his inaugural venture. However, as he mentioned in an interview, securing a genuine feature film for dubbing was a challenging endeavor, and he seized the 'Mabuse' opportunity.

Nonetheless, what Kuhn has achieved within the confines of this film and his franchise is nothing short of impeccable. Despite being a dub, Dominik Kuhn has demonstrated his prowess in filmmaking. I genuinely wish this film garners success and paves the way for Kuhn to tackle even greater challenges. One can only imagine what he would accomplish with a more fitting film (picture a Bond movie ☺) or, better yet, with his original material. Regrettably, due to its obscure language, this film is unlikely to transcend its status as a clever, witty, and technically flawless experiment in terms of sheer audience numbers. But make no mistake, it stands shoulder to shoulder with 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid,' and, when history is just (it's not), all the inevitable international imitators will undoubtedly cite it as their benchmark. Don't be deceived: quite simply, this is a work of genius, irrespective of personal taste or one's inclination toward the film.

The Dark Side of the Moon (1990)

Much better than similar B-movies from that time

[7/10 · 12 April 2023]

It's come up here several times before, but it's really strange that this film flies under the radar of so many people, even science fiction fans. It's certainly not on par with the great A-productions from the era, and while much of its overall look is obviously and directly lifted from ALIEN (in a good way), this is a film that has its own merits. I recently watched a number of B-movies in the sci-fi genre from this period (CREATURE/THE TITAN FIND, DEEP STAR SIX, LEVIATHAN, etc.), and I have to say that this film is better in many ways, even than far more famous and successful productions.

The actors consistently deliver very good performances, the dialogue is not as cheesy as in its cinematic counterparts, the space special effects effects are very good for the time, great sets and thus production value, and it is one of the few B-movies from the time that understand the importance of high contrast lighting (the play of light and shadow here is on par with much more expensive films).

The only factors that cheapen the film are a strangely uniform pace with almost no change in mood throughout, which is underlined by the constant, merciless synthesizer score that is the film's weakest element in my opinion. But well, they had to save somewhere.

Anyway: the movie is creepy, looks good and fulfills the raised expectations. Give it a try!

Mars Attacks! (1996)

Do the Martians have two sexes like we do?

[10/10 · 8 April 2022]

This is just one of the funniest comedies out there, and maybe the funniest sci-fi comedy ever. Such an intelligent satire, and just goofily funny at the same time. It's a bit baffling to read the goofs section here, were people define elements as goofs that clearly have been included as deliberate gags.

I've been watching it last night again, for the umpteenth time but after a long pause. And I had to find out that the scene with the presidential press conference when the androgynous reporter stands up and pops the gender question still keeps cracking me up. I remember laughing out loud back in 1996 in the theatre. This is comedy filmmaking in perfection: The casting, the staging, the timing, the reaction shot of the president and his entourage - just perfect.

Open Water (2003)

An alternate take on why the film doesn't really work

[5/10 · 18 June 2021]

To make one thing clear: The film is neither as crappy as some people here want you to believe nor is it as good. And the acting also is fine, don't believe the naysayers. There are some actually very objective reviews here on characterisation, staging, pacing and what's good and what's bad about it. Look in the 5 star range.

But I wonder why - as far as I've seen - nobody mentions the film's biggest flaw: It being shot with one of the affordable digital cameras of the time. Although this had to do with the budget and of course was a great way of pulling the whole project off with the kind of money they were willing to spend, it makes for the film's weakest point.

Nowadays the majority of films is shot digital, but the technology has evolved, and a real film look can be achieved with a digital camera (no matter what some people may want you to believe). But at the time, everything labelled 'video' (it has nothing do do with digital or analog) had a distinct video look, as opposed to a cinematic, filmic look. The majority of people feel the difference but can't pinpoint what exactly it is, and the reasons for this distinct look are beyond the scope of this review. Important is that there have been many studies on the topic that conclude that we perceive events filmed on video as reported whereas the same events shot on film (or in a film look, see above) are perceived as a story told.

Now, before you suspect me of being one of those cruel 'hindsight is 20/20' know-it-alls, I'm not. The aforementioned phenomenon was well known in 2003, and many filmmakers tried everything - partly with wild optical contraptions - to achieve film look on video. But in the film's making of, the director says "We were looking for a story that would benefit from that format." And herein, my friends, lies the rub. The format actually interferes with the story, and again, this was already clear at the time.

The film's first half hour or so works fine. It looks like a well edited documentary, a professional holiday movie or at least student or indie film, emphasised by the handheld camera and the video look. But the moment the couple is alone in the water, the stylistic choice - be it intentional or unintentional - becomes a liability. A jarring incongruity stays with us until the end: There has to be a cameraman with them in the water, or even worse, and obvious from the camera angles, on the boat nearby. And believe or or not, this is something your brain will mostly ignore when the same story is shot in a real film look.

I concur with most reviews that the time spent in the water could have been more suspenseful, but what can you do? I am still full of respect for the filmmaker's tenacity to go through with this project. For me personally as a diver, the film's premise is great, and the whole setting is very realistic. The thought of being left behind like that on sea scares the hell out of me. But the film didn't. It just couldn't draw me in. To me, it always looked and felt like a mediocre ... film. I do think that a found footage approach would have been stronger - as hard as it may have been to implement. Of course 'Blair Witch' comes to mind. Or 'Cloverfield'. And the other way round: I think that Michael Mann's 'Public Enemies' failed for the same reason. Mann even said: "We shot some tests on film first, but it looked like a period piece." Ehhh... yes? It IS a period piece. To me, watching Dillinger shot on HD video is a little disturbing. I am glad camera technology has evolved anyway.

Oh, and one more thing: Lions Gate's claim 'Better than Jaws' was of course a very stupid marketing ploy. Man, would I have felt being taken for a ride, had I at the time watched the film based on reading the claim.

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

It's a mad mad mad mad review ...

[9/10 · 4 June 2021]

..not. This is an old film that has aged really, really, really, really well. Which of course doesn't prevent it from getting some very impertinent negative reviews here. Granted, nobody's able to switch his brain back to 1963 - I can't at any rate, as I was born way later. But if one has seen a lot of movies, one should be able to at figure out at what point of the scale something stood quality-wise at the time. IAMMMMW arguably stood very high. You must not forget that saying something like 'Grogan crashed in his chips' back then had the level of coolness we nowadays find in stuff like 'Modern Family'. Another example: Grogan actually kicking the bucket when he dies. This was an all-new and hilarious gag at the time. If you can't appreciate this and get into that vibe, such films are not for you. If you are able to do so however, you will find that IAMMMMW is indeed one of the best comedies of all time. So, on a side note, if you're not generally able to watch an older film while appreciating the circumstances it was made under - e.g. The period with its world view and possibilities - then just don't write a review about it. Complaining about unfashionable clothes, old jokes (that were new at the time), decorations, TV sets, cars and the way people behaved and spoke is not gonna get uns anywhere.

IAMMMMW is built on the foundation of a truly great ensemble cast, with of course Spencer Tracy as Culpepper at the core. We all know him for his dramatic roles, but here he combines his well-known fatherly vibes with a wonderful quirkiness that alone makes the film a treat to watch. Again it shows how brilliant an actor he was - always being realistic, never overacting. No wonder it was Tracy who said: 'Acting is the easiest thing in the world. Just don't get caught doing it.' He knew his trade.

My personal favourite in the film is Terry-Thomas. Maybe it's just me, but watching him and hearing him speak alone fascinates the hell out of me. He could read from a phone book as far as I'm concerned.

In terms of comedy and comedic timing there is much to learn from this film: One of the highlights must be the shot when Benjy and Culpepper are looking at each other while the others are digging. Again, it's a simple classic, but it's well executed and timeless as such. Seen a thousand times again since then and still effective. Another notable scene is the one with Sylvester Marcus and the dancing girl with the deadpan look. Who in his right mind could have conceived a character like her back in 1963?

And then there is a technical aspect: The film looks brilliant. Even today. I'd seen the 1080P version for the first time the other day, and I was taken aback how sharp the image was, which always means that the sharpness was already there on the negative. But some obvious back projection aside and some wobbly tracking shots, the film is not a terrible strain on the eye, as Terry-Thomas would say. The vistas, the colours, the sets, the framing - just great.

For me, the film's only drawback is the ending with the ladder; that's the only part where everything really gets childish.

The overused saying 'They don't make em anymore' is right. They tried with 'Rat Race' and didn't succeed. Maybe it's time for another try. Until then, re-watch IAMMMMW from time to time.

The Core (2003)

Great science fiction action adventure disaster drama not to be taken all too seriously

[8/10 · 2 May 2021]

If hard science fiction is a must for you when it comes to sci fi, then this one is not for you. On the other hand, if you like adventure, drama, great production values, a great script, a lush score, and some of the best actors on the planet, AND if you allow for suspension of disbelief and the right amount of cheesiness, you are going to like this film a lot. All the bad reviews must come from people that can't deal with any of the above-mentioned.

To get it out of the way: technology- and physics-wise there is some serious felgercarp going on in this movie, and I mean across the board. I won't go into details - read the goofs section here or all the one star reviews if you need to know. And the CGI VFX are really not really up to the standards of their time (as a matter of fact, I saw the film for the first time in 1080P the other day and was taken aback how much worse the VFX look in comparison to the slightly more forgiving SD version).

But what really stands out in a positive way are two things: At first a brillant script with near perfect pacing. The way the story develops, characters are ... eh, characterised, who dies when and for what, drama versus thrill versus fun - I can't think of any better way of doing it, at least when it comes to the adventure genre in general. The script is even suitable for studying pacing when you're in film school.

And at second a brillant cast. Stanley Tucci is one of my all-time favourite actors anyway, but he is only one of many shining stars here. Reading in other reviews about bad acting in this film is slightly disturbing, to be honest. Go and watch for yourself. If any of the actors here is one of your favorites: None of them is going to disappoint you.

Add to that great set design, great production values (the CGI stuff aside) and some scenes that are real nail-biters, and you have a great sci fi adventure. I really don't get why it gets lambasted so much. Maybe it's because the film doesn't even take itself all too serious and that's not obvious for everybody. The clue is in naming the metal the 'Virgil' is made of 'Unobtainium'. Can anyone be more meta than this?

If there was a genre called 'science fiction action adventure disaster drama', then if would fit this film. To find a comparison: I personally think it's by far a better film then 'Armageddon', although there are similarities in premise, drama and pacing. And only slightly less fun than the first 'Independence Day'. OK; so now you know where I stand. ;-)

Poltergeist (1982)

It's great anyway, but watch it if you're a film student!

[9/10 · 2 May 2021]

I guess from now on I'm gonna start all of my reviews with the following petition: If you're not generally able to watch an older film while appreciating the circumstances it was made under - in this case the period with its world view and possibilities - then for crying out loud don't write a review about it. Complaining about unfashionable clothes, old TV sets and cars, the way people spoke and not-up-to-date looking SFX is not gonna get uns anywhere.

I hadn't seen 'Poltergeist' in at least fifteen years, and boy, had I forgotten how good this film is. I don't know how much Spielberg eventually had a hand in it (a lot, as I read), but Tobe Hooper is well undercredited wherever you look. Everybody's talking about 'Spielberg's film', completely ignoring the fact that the movie poster says 'Directed by Tobe Hooper'. And even if the producer is such a heavyweight like Spielberg already was at the time, and for marketing reasons has been billed way bigger than the director, the latter must have had a saying in casting and the way things are put to screen. And these two factors - amongst others - have been done very well, and it shows.

There is not a really bad actress or actor to be seen across the board, but of course JoBeth Williams, Craig Nelson, Beatrice Straight, Zelda Rubinstein and Heather O'Rourke do make a powerful nucleus of characters. Watch for little gems like when Steve and Diane go to the neighbour to tell him about their first supernatural experience: It's just brillant acting, combined with great timing. There are many such scenes, from comedic to dramatic. I guess one of the highlights is the whole scene when Steve opens for the first time the kids' room door for the parapsychologists. I also had forgotten what a charismatic guy Nelson is: Watch how he can be so cool and hero-like, funny, and vulnerable at the same time.

Oh, and one more wafer thin mint: If I'd teach at film school, I'd use this film as a showcase for staging and framing well done. Many scenes are staged as uncut masters - but not like in earlier times when this was normal and cutting had not yet really developed; here it was done deliberately to help the film's mood. The highlight must be when Tangina's plan to get the daughter back gets executed: From the starting close-up on the tennis balls to the finishing close-up on the door knob it's one continuous master of almost three minutes. Watch how people are staged. It's brillant. And this was in 1982 - it is not just a stunt to show off what's possible, it serves the atmosphere and the storytelling.

Apart from some shortcomings that have to do with the time it was made in, this is one great demon picture. If you like the genre or if you want to add to your filmmaker's knowledge, watch it.

Life (I) (2017)

Forget the nitpickers. This film is one helluva ride.

[9/10 · 31 March 2021]

Have you seen 'Gravity' and really couldn't take it because of its shortcomings in the science area? Have you watched 'Alien: Covenant' and really couldn't take how stupid the scientists are? If you can answer both questions with 'yes', skip this one. You won't like it. But if it's two 'no's, and if you like sci fi, suspense and a little bit of horror, you will utterly enjoy this movie. This is not the sloppily made B-movie some others here want to make you believe it is. It's a very well done A-list nail-biter from the second act onwards, with a very solid twist at the end. I had the pleasure of seeing the movie without knowing anything about it (I just could guess from the poster), and I'm a big sci fi buff - and I liked it. If you recognise yourself in this review, watch it. You won't be disappointed.

Criminal (2016)

Hard to rate the film, but Kevin Coster's acting is a ten.

[7/10 · 30 March 2021]

I won't say much about the film. Sort the reviews by helpfulness and you in about will get my opinion. I will only say as much: After reading the cast list I expected something less ... bland? I can't actually put my finger on it. There is less of Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Oldman than one would have liked, but they're aptly cast and show the good performances you'd expect from them. But I want to point your attention to Costner's acting. If I told you in advance what kind of character he plays, you would expect something familiar from experience - but it's not exactly what you get. Costner does much more with the role than expected. His character is multi-faceted: A mixture between brutal animal, a bit of a mentally challenged person and some traits he 'inherits' through the film's core procedure. And Costner knows what to do with that. He brings the torn character to screen in a gripping way. There is more to the usual Costner deadpan approach we know from whenever he doesn't play the nice guy. Watch closely, you won't be disappointed.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

A bold sci fi film for our days.

[10/10 · 9 November 2020]

2.400+ reviews on this site as of this writing. One half hates the film, the other half loves it. Both factors are a good sign. :-) If you read my other reviews, you will find that I barely give ten stars. Why? Because there rarely is a perfect film. Within the genre of science fiction, for me this is one of them. There are plenty of long, interesting reviews here, and you surely don't need another one repeating details of the film, but let me point out one thing: As I recall, the flak the film got was A) based on it being too long, and B) that people didn't understand it. Now, I think reason B) is rather ironic, as the first 'Blade Runner' was plagued by this apparent necessity for different versions that all had the goal of making the film more or less understandable (depending on Ridley's or the studio's point of view). In my world, 'Blade Runner 2049' was the first film in a very long time the storyline of which I could follow COMPLETELY and which left me satisfied on the way out of the theatre. I could even re-tell the film's story right now (something I can't do with any of the Bond films since 'Casino Royale' by the way), and I'm not even all too much of a Blade Runner nerd. What is there not to understand? And about the film being too long: Don't listen to these people. It doesn't 'linger unnecessarily' (as I have read) on shots, it takes its time in the right manner. Again ironic: This is something Ridley has been hailed for not only on the original 'Blade Runner', but also on his masterpiece 'Alien'. The film is visually absolutely stunning, and it is so because it takes its time. This is a blockbuster sequel that does not follow the Hollywood rule of dumbing everything down. If you love sci fi films and don't have the general urge to check your mobile phone while watching films, go watch 'Blade Runner 2049'. Very simple.

Total Recall (I) (2012)

Decent Film, but something is missing. A little bit of soul?

[7/10 · 9 November 2020]

Watching a scifi film, have you ever stopped and wondered who the heck designs all that stuff? The buildings, the gadgets, the transportation devices, the shapes that look great but mostly serve no real purpose? And I'm not talking about the set designers, I mean the people within the story. Have you? Well, this is the right film for you. And I mean that in a positive way. Len Wiseman has made some great decisions in this regard, as the visuals of this film are stunning. The sheer amount of ... stuff in each and every frame and the way everything looks is amazing. Yeah, most of it is lifted from various other films, but so is almost all the 'fresh' creative stuff that reaches your brain. Culture is the result of millenniums of mental inheritance. Get over it. Even Mozart didn't start from nothing. And there are a few fresh ideas in the film: The phones that can project an image onto a glass surface - illogical as that may be - come to mind. Or the concept of 'The Fall' in general. The transportation cubes, a slightly more logical, high-end version of the stupid steeplechase enabling device in 'Galaxy Quest'. And so on. So, dismissing the film in general is wrong. A lot of work went into this one.

And thus endeth the objective part of my review, because I found that something with this flick was missing. And I can't even put my finger on it. Somehow I lost interest about halfway through the movie. Is it because I know and like Verheuven's original? I don't think so. I have seen plenty of remakes that have held my attention, and I din't even think too much of the original. Maybe I was distracted by the sheerness of the visualization. Maybe by the (overly electronic) score, that I could have done without during quite a few moments. Was it the blandness of the whole world the film takes place in, something that seems to be in vogue since a few years? Was even I, a great fan of the J. J. Abrams anamorphic memorial lens flare, distracted by too many of them? I was glad when Bryan Cranston made his entrance, because he is at his best here - he's one of the few guys that I can watch as a villain and as a goodie (still haven't decided which one I like best with him).

Anyway, if you're a scifi buff and like visually compelling films, then you're in for a ride with this one. Don't compare it too much with the original, as this will spoil the fun. This is space thriller in it own right.

Oh, and an observation: I found it interesting that Len Wiseman casts his own wife as the b*tch. Just a thought.

Schtonk (1992)

Still one of the best German comedies - never unintentionally cheesy, but not too brainy

[9/10 · 2 November 2020]

Eventually, somebody had to do a film about the Hitler diaries forgery, and of course it always should have been the Germans. It was theirs to do it. But to be honest, I was afraid of it happening, as the German film industry has all too often proven to be a botcher of good premises. But anyway, the Brits did it fist with their series 'Selling Hitler' (which I haven't seen yet), and boy am I glad that the late Helmut Dietl made this wonderful film. It's German to the core, but without selling out to the usual German comedy audience. All the better that it managed to be a huge success in Germany. And one has to admit the courage Dietl had in doing it as a comedy. At the time, Germany's conflicting with its own past still was problematic. Anything to do with Hitler was only to be seen in rationalistic documentaries and TV magazines - which is not wrong at any rate, but anybody knows that looking at such things from a satiric angle has also its value. But for German media this was long out of the question. Before 'Schtonk', being humoresque about Hitler had never really made it into German mainstream.

Anyway, I won't go into 'Schtonk''s plot details, and unfortunately and obviously some of the humor will be lost on you if you don't speak German; but let me point you to a certain aspect of the film: The acting. Dietl really managed to direct his actors in a way that at the time was not commonplace in Germany. The most blatant example is Götz George's Hermann Willié. My fellow Germans are going to hate me, but I always found George a bit overrated. Yea, he WAS a terrific actor, but not in the way Germans thought (if you want to know more about my stance on German actors, feel free to read my other reviews on German films). George was good when he played himself, which he basically did in his iconic role as Commissioner Schimanski in the long running German 'Tatort' crime TV series. Schimanski's name was basically synonymous for Tatort cops during the 80's in Germany. But once he had to play someone completely else, he was lost. He either drifted in theatre overacting mode or couldn't shake his Schimanski mannerisms (which is why typecasting is not such a bad thing anyway). I think Germans always had a problem recognising that. They just just didn't get it. For example, George was highly praised for his role in 'Der Totmacher', but I was one of the few people who thought that his acting would have been great on the theatre stage but just did not do the film very good. In 'Schtonk' there is also a great deal of overacting across the board to be found, but Dietl uses it in an absolute fitting manner. He especially gets such a fantastic performance out of George that I will always remember it as his best. The mannerisms, the way he utilises George's clipped speaking - it's just perfect for the character. Let me point you to the scene where he confesses to the priest. Just hilarious. And not for a moment you are distracted by any Schimanski residues.

Now, all that praising of George should not take away from the other actors, nor from the film as a whole. It's just worth a watch, and to quote my own review title: Still one of the best German comedies - never unintentionally cheesy, but not too brainy.

Logan's Run (1976)

Underrated because of flaws that have to do with its era

[8/10 · 1 November 2020]

Another film that easily gets dismissed by know-it-alls of all ages because it's not as perfect as it could have been, at least of viewed from a contemporary vantage point. Yes, the special effects in the opening scene give away too easily the model work due to the unfortunate bokeh; yes, the production and costume design as well as the hairstyle are a bit all too seventies; yes, Michael York delivers some of the more ham-fisted scenes in movie history (watch him throwing his fists enthusiastically sideways in the carousel, or shouting 'you can live!' near the movie's end, which are both examples of good stage acting, by the way); yes, Box is one disco king of a robot. But the story remains a very good one, and especially the journey outside the domed city to overgrown Washington D. C. is one of the best of its kind - for the time. I always wished the whole exploration part could have been longer (something the TV series wanted to offer, but in my opinion they seriously botched it and/or were hampered by low budget). I really hope that Michael Bay's shameless rip-off 'The Island', which killed off any remake plans for the time being (yes, it is a rip-off, hasn't anyone noticed the name of Tom Lincoln's boat? It's 'Renavatio'), is old enough now to allow for a remake. Anyway: Until the time comes, give the original a try. And do so with some mercy regarding the seventies style. At least it's the reason why Logan has a beautiful de Sede sofa in his appartment. If only I could afford one.

The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse (1960)

Mea Culpa - an objective analysis of a not very good film.

[2/10 · 1 November 2020]

Knowing the film very well, having recently watched it again and reading the reviews here, I felt prompted to write a really objective review. That being said, I know that nobody can be objective, but I'll do my best. Let me precede with saying that I'm absolutely not the kind of person to dismiss old films quickly just because I view them with hindsighted, biased modern eyes. But this is a rather bad film, and even so from a 1960's point of view. One can not shake the feeling that this film has simply been canonized and granted diplomatic immunity just because it was directed by the great Fritz Lang. Sadly, the discussion of this film seems to have been reduced to this only factor: Its director. Yes, Lang WAS a great director for his time, but that does not mean that all of his films are great. This one is not good. Was it Lang's fault? I have my theory. If this film interests you, please read on, even if you're appalled by my pointing out of the film's shortcomings. I don't want to spoil my own review, but I don't think any of these weaknesses are Lang's fault. Here we go:

As usual, let's start with the redeeming qualities: The direction of the actors and the camera work is great for its time, the one noticeable set - the clairvoyant Cornelius' office - is really beautifully and imaginatively made, and Gert Fröbe and Peter van Eyck are simply great actors. With their style they easily meet current standards in acting (as they are mainly playing derivates of their real-life personalities, which in my opinion always has been a key to success, and never a bad thing anyway). Furthermore, Lang wanted to be critical of the not so long defunct Nazi regime, as wanted his producer Artur Brauner. One of the film's lesser mentioned manifestations in this regard are the allusions to Joseph Goebbels: The clubfooted Roberto Menil, the dog ...

But that seems to be about it. The film otherwise is full of inconstistencies and shortcomings that must not only have been noticed by modern film buffs, but also by people back then. What sets this film back? Here are the reasons that in my opinion make it impossible to call the film 'great'.

First of all, there is its whole scenic approach. One could say they wanted to create the feeling of an intimate play, but that can't be true, as some parts of the film desperately try to be grand - and fail. Most obvisously, there are no establishing shots whatsoever, and only very few wide shots, which are always what make a film grand. The single shot passing as an establisher is the face of the hotel, but even this one leaves one without any orientation or feeling of expanse. There are also no shots of contemporary Berlin, and very few outdoor shots. Exceptions are the murder in a car early on in the film, Travers picking up Cornelius, or the climactic car chase. But even those shots show no sign of largesse, nor do they provide a real sense of orientation - something that doesn't fit Lang.

And then there is the breaking down of scenes. Many of them are downright painful to watch, as again many times you are left alone without any orientation. One of the more obvious examples is the scene where Commissioner Kras is watching Travers and Cornelius leaving in their car - there's no shot of their car actually driving away. That would have been filmmaking one on one, even at the time. And why are there no more shots of Cornelius during the scene with the speaker phone in Kras' office? Why are there so few cutaways to people talking with other people? And so on. Re-watch it with open eyes and you will see what I mean. The film is full of such occurences. Even the partly cheesy German Edgar Wallace films of the period did better. Mostly.

And then there is the storyline's filmic execution. There are so many inonsistencies that it would by far exceed the scope of this review, but here are a few: At first, there are almost no foreshadowings whatsoever. The obvious question 'Who is Mabuse' is no big riddle, as there are only few characters introduced as possible culprits, or they die soon enough to be out of the loop. The only viable suspects are Cornelius and Professor Jordan (how lame is that, as they are both the culprit in the end), and a barely viable red herring is Mistelzweig, but that's about it. The big chance to establish Travers as a suspect has been missed. It's all too clear that he is a victim. Another annoying thing: Various characters die without ever getting an introduction, but stay important for the rest of the the film. At a certain point you simply give up and convince yourself that you are watching an intelligent murder-mystery, numbed by the fact that it's a Fritz Lang film.

And Mabuse's final reveal is so lame that it defies words. Professor Jordan simply taking off his beard and his wig - which doesn't change his looks much anyway - is a great disappointment at a point where you must long have figured out what's going on. And there is no payoff whatsoever to the realization that he's also Cornelius. The simple solution would have been to show Mabuse as Cornelius drop his mask, not as Jordan. But for some reason they didn't think of that. It's just one of the many missed chances in the film. In the end you even have to ask yourself why Cornelius as a character was even there. Why did Mabuse act as clairvoyant? He didn't use that persona for anything useful. Why doesen't he coerce Travers into anyting? He even saves Kras - first he places him in the deadly chair during the seance, then he warns him? It's never made clear why. I could go on and on.

OK, so the film is flawed. But let's cut to the chase: I can't believe that all of this was Lang's fault. He has proven time and time again that he knows about the things I so arrogantly point out as shortcomings here - he even helped establishing some of them as rules being taught at film school. So why this mediocre final result?

When watching the film closely, it's obvious that there's a very good film hidden in there somewhere, but circumstances must have prevented it from coming to light. Was it budget restraints? Producer interference? I've read somewhere that CCC's Artur Brauner was known for that, but I can't say for sure. I think it was both. There is a scene with Van Eyck at the hotel during the last act where the music just stops abruptly at the cut, which is a clear indication for the fact that a scene was cut even after picture lock and mixing. An indication that there was a scene there that we will never see. And this obviously couldn't have been the only one. Why is there no shot of Cornelius at the other end of the speaker phone? Because Preiss was not available anymore and they could use the voice artist that spoke Cornelius' voice (Siegfried Schürenberg in the German version). Why not shoot Traver's car leaving? Why not shoot Commissioner Kras watching Mabuse's car sinking to the bottom of the lake? Why not shoot countless establishers and counter shots? No time, no actors there, no money. For me, that's the only explanation.

As a result, the film has become so disjointed, so confusing, so full of missed opportunities and so full of Chekhov's Guns that it's a pity that it was the great Fritz Lang's last film.

I know it's no use giving a film two out of ten stars after everyone involved in it is dead and apparently there is nothing to be learned from. But so is giving a film ten stars when it's just not a ten star film. What's film critizising for anyway?

Outland (1981)

Fantastic looking 1980's scifi not as dull as some people say, with a great Connery

[9/10 · 1 November 2020]

Life is strange: The other Friday I was watching 'Outland' for the first time in years, and the next morning I hear that Sir Sean Connery has passed away. He will be missed. And his performance in this film adds to the reasons. I think he succeeded a great deal in moving away from his Bond image here. One thing that really stood out for me was the fact that his character doesn't employ any womanizing. And I didn't miss it. I won't spoil anything here, but his getting help from a certain person (the only one who helps him) is really uplifting. Of course there are a few downs (besides the wrong science, snore, it's not a documentary, and yeah, they were trying to emulate the feel of 'Alien' in the credits, and yeah, the data reasearch sequence is boring etc. etc.), but for any scifi aficionado it's a must watch. I'm not gonna get into the storyline here (there are some other, very good reviews here), but as a scifi buff, I'll gladly point you to some other aspects of the movie. For starters, count the various sets. I mean the real, big sets that somebody actually constructed. And there are many of them, it's amazing. Then there are the models. I've read a few reviews here nagging about 'bad model work'. What? They must have been written by some Generation X neophytes that have no idea what they are talking about, as the model work - and there is a lot of it to be seen here - is outstanding. Many models are very intricate constructions they easily could have simplified, but they didn't. They wanted to match the model work with the sets, many of which play a lot with girderwork and the like, which they succeeded in. The whole film has a very coherent, fantastic look to it, and the VFX barely distract from it (aside from a few visible matte lines). The direction, editing and also the framing of the shots underpin the storyline in a moody, bleak, but not in the least superficial film. Watch it!

Them! (1954)

As of 2020, not a single 1 star review here. And deservedly so.

[9/10 · 1 November 2020]

There is something significant about this film in terms of IMBD-ness: It does not have a single 1 or 2 star rating (as of this review). This is significant because nowadays it's in vogue to summarily dismiss a classic in one single sentence, or the other way round, praise it as the 'best movie ever', in both cases mostly without considering the circumstances the film was made under or what it wanted to achieve in the first place. 'Them' has also some scathing reviews, but obviously not even the know-it-alls could bring themselves to down vote it. Which is clear, because there is one undeniable fact: Despite the cheesy giant ants and some ham-fisted acting (which was not considered ham-fisted at the time, nor were the ants seen as embarrassing) this film is one of the blueprints for alle monster films to follow. All the characters are there: Some likable police guys, some hot shots, a damsel (and some kids) in distress and a wise, calm scientist that keeps everything together. Back in 1954, screenplays were not written following scores of rules - the rules we have today were beginning to develop back then - so the film may have some quirks. But seen in the context of its time, its a really good monster movie. And I did enjoy it over and over again within the last 20 years, for that matter.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

Ignore the naysaysers - brilliant genre fimmaking!

[9/10 · 1 November 2020]

Bottom line: This is one of the best action adventure films of 2018. And I have to be careful not to be writing a rant against ignorant revievers instead of an actual review. So, to get it out of the way: It's interesting to note that most negative reviews on this film circle around unrealistic premises and plot points - even the eloquent reviews, and eloquence should be a sign of wisdom. Seems it isn't. People, how many times over do we have to state it: Films like these do only EXIST because realism is not core of the story. These films need to be plausible - or at least probable -, but not realistic. That's at the core of the genre. If they'd left out everything unrealistic in the film, there would be no film. And no, the first Jurassic Park movie was in no way more realistic. There are no more dinosaurs walking the earth, and there will not be any for a long time to come (if any). And it's absolutely OK for such a film to stretch suspension of disbelief from time to time, to show stupid behaviour of people and technical inaccuracies. I really don't care that the wailing Brachiosaurus is probably too heavy for the dock he's standing on. Seeing it being left behind and facing its death breaks my heart, and what kind of person do you have to be to rather be facepalming yourself during that scene instead of immersing yourself into the story? The little technicality with the presumably weak dock is by no means distractive to the story, and it is very clear why people need to point it out, along with a scathing sneer: It is more important to have a reason to join the nitpicking contest with narcisisstically motivated ranting than approving of obiously very good overall work. The story is so old: Someone took a long time to build a beautiful sand castle, so let's destroy it with one quick blow. And why do those haters keep complaining about sloppy and unimaginative writing? In a world with 8 billion people and after a long storytelling history, there is only a finite number of very intelligent, surprising and new plots left to be written (if any at all). So what do actually want? Films like this not being made anymore? I have another suggestion: Just stay away from film genres you don't like. Yes, there are expensive yet stupid and wholly uninventive and sloppily written blockbuster films out there, but JWFK is by no means one of them!

And now straight to the point: JWFK is one big surprise. It ups the ante of the series significantly, and I found myself being surprised that this is my second favorite of the Jurassic Park films (right after the first one). And that credit goes primarily to director J. A. Bayona. His vision and the capability to bring it on screen is just remarkable - and that's not easy to achieve. It's not a surprise that NOT everyone is a director these days, despite contradicting claims. The staging, framing and lighting of the dinosaurs (the auction and the confrontation on the glass roof in particular), Bayona's timing, his work with actors and imaginary creatures is just great. At no point of the film I felt left cheated, bored or even insulted, as some other people say. It was just one impressing, thrilling, aesthetic rollercoaster ride. And it's also the first time in the series (which I have been an avid fan of since 1993) that I really feel with the dinosaurs. Despite earlier tries to make them (in part) the victim, the previous films where centered more on the people being the victims of dinosaur-related mayhem. But this one made me think for the first time that it was maybe wrong to un-extinct the dinosars for their own sake (yeah, yeah, you guys figured that out long before, I know), and the character of Maisie Lockwood plays a pivotal role in that realization.

I could go on and on with positive traits of the film, but there are other reviews here to find them. I have turned 46 recently and seen too many action-adventure, sci-fi, mystery and thriller films. I am bit bored by my own inability to find impressing films anymore and would love being able to start over. But I vividly remember, JWFK made my cinematic 2018. It it the best action-adventure I have seen this year. J. A. Bayona and his team have built one very beautiful sand castle. If you think you can relate to my self-characterization: Watch it. You won't be disappointed. By the way, if you are interested: I' am one of the people who loved 2017's KONG - SKULL ISLAND. I'm confident that if you liked that one, you will like this one, too - or the other way round.

Gladbeck (2018)

Good film, but ...

[6/10 · 2 April 2020]

The film is certainly one of the better German productions, and almost all the other reviews here are right about its positive aspects. It's shot brilliantly and the 80's production design is spot on. Sascha Alexander Gersak as Hans-Jürgen Rösner is simply incredible. Otherwise I never completely agree with most of my fellow Germans about good acting; personally I think in many cases there is a fakeness, something too staged about the way many German star actors speak. But that may be a matter of taste and it's not my point. My grievance is about the ending. Maybe I have seen some cut home entertainment version and the TV version was longer, but the decision to not continue telling the story in the same denseness than the first 85 minutes of the film and simply rushing to the end feels like a cheat. Yes, I already know the director's and producer's explanation: Everybody knows what horrible end the crisis took, everybody has seen the images of this first media-covered (in Germany) hostage crisis, so why repeat them here? Very simple: Because A) not everyone has seen the images and B) as many, many other re-tellings of real life happenings have shown, there is an indisputable fascination to seeing familiar images from a different angle never before seen. The series 'Chernobyl' comes to mind. Don't get me wrong: I don't need to see the hostages getting shot, but watching this rushed ending after sitting through nail-bitingly thrilling 85 minutes left me hollow. I also found the decision astounding: Why did they shoot all those scenes and then only use them in such a compendious way? It seems the broadcasters or producers forced the director to do so. I can't imagine he wanted it that way. Just my 10 cents.

The Lego Movie (2014)

Awesome!

[10/10 · 20 August 2018]

Basically everything about this movie has has been said in the other reviews, so I'll confine mine to two points: 1) The realization that this movie is so good BECAUSE it can be mistaken as one big LEGO advert was a fascinating one to me. They found one extremely satisfying way to make "the" LEGO movie and tell a beautiful story (watch until the end!). Had they done something like "G.I. Joe", "Battleship" or the likes, they would have failed. 2) The way they're using LEGO bricks for EVERYTHING, including and not limited to fire, water, foam, smoke, explosions, laser beams, LED bargraphs, clouds, force fields, motion blur (!) and more, is just mind-boggling and alone warrants watching the film. Everything is awesome!

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

What is it with you people complaining about bad acting?

[8/10 · 19 August 2018]

Do you know what you're talking about? No! If you don't LIKE the way somebody looks and behaves that does NOT equal that she or he is a bad actor. To make one thing clear: I also think that Cara and Dane are miscast, but not because they are bad actors (they clearly aren't) but they don't fit the roles. I was an avid Valerian & Laureline reader in the 80's and would have imagined other people in the two lead roles, but that's not even the point. The point is: Cara and Dane are simply too young for the characters, and you don't need to know the comic book to find that annoying. Even assuming that mankind has evolved in 400 years and younger people are more developped from early on, this is the wrong kind of a big stretch. No such agents are left with a ship and responsibilities like that. I can't shake the feeling that they were simply cast to appeal to a younger audience. But back to the point: Calling Cara's acting wooden or robotic or neglecting chemistry between the two of them is downright stupid. Portraying Laureline that way was a deliberate choice between Besson and Cara, and you can criticize that decision, but it does not warrant calling her a bad actress. Get your facts right, all you hobbyist reviewers. And beware, I'm not falling into the trap defending her because she's a babe. Cara is not even my type (yes, that's possible), but I was fascinated watching her all the way through BECAUSE she did a great job and has something that keeps your attention. THAT'S what makes a good actor, and not the ability of pulling faces.

But the too-young leads are about my main problem with the film. Yes, one could say that the - brilliantly executed - Rihanna setpiece serves no real purpose, but the dance sequence is SO well done in every aspect that it makes up for that.

Anyway, this film surpasses all the last Star Wars installments since 1999. Give it a chance. Sit back and enjoy a classic space opera, even when it's not "The Fifth Element". But who compares anyway? It's a film in its own right! Rent it, buy the disc, let it earn its budget back so we can have a sequel (there's material enough for 20 sequels) and watch John Goodman's character come back. Nuff said.

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)

How would you have done it?

[9/10 · 16 August 2018]

No, it's maybe not the best book adaptation. No, it doesn't do the book justice. No, people in the Bronx don't wear, nor have ever worn, such clothes. Yes, Peter Fallow is English in the book. Yes, you could say Melanie Griffith overacts. But you could also say that she a) plays herself like she behaved on the job and b) De Palma wanted her to do it that way. The point is that Da Palma did a brillant job. You simply must not compare this film to the book, but watch it in its own right: as a comedy from 1990. If you manage that you will find that it's great film. It is entertaining, it looks great (for the time, and it's a pity that there is still no really good Blu-Ray remaster), it is acted very well right across the board, it holds your attention, and it has even aged well. Bashing De Palma for it was simply never fair - it was en vogue back then for many reasons. Read "The Devil's Candy" by Julie Salamon if you are a film freak and/or really interested what went on then. If not, and if you haven't read Wolfe's fantastic book, don't listen to the naysayers, the Tom Wolfe fanboys and over-intellectualizing critics. Just sit back enjoy a wonderful film from that time and of that genre. And if you have read the book (which is fun AFTER watching the film, as it elaborates on so many points, if you will), seriously ask youself: How would you have done the film?

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Still my favourite Star Trek Film.

[10/10 · 3 August 2018]

I actually think this is the best of the Star Trek movies. Why? At first I couldn't pinpoint it myself, but I found myself re-watching it the most of all the Treks. I may be of a strange type, as I also like TMP a lot, but I finally found out what I like so much about it, and this is nothing new for all the fans of the film: It's a simple whodunnit you can enjoy also if you're not a Trekkie. Even if you don't know the backstories of Kirk & co., you can savour the thriller aspect of it. And on top of that the screenplay is simply a good one. The story moves along and events unfold at the right pace and there is no cringe-worthy dialogue as far as the eye can see. Actually, the opposite is true: I think Spock's line "What we require now is a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity before the Captain and Dr. McCoy freeze to death" is SO GREAT that I memorized it and use it on my job in variations when someone is slow. With this movie, Nicholas Meyer has proven (again) that he really knows what he's doing as a writer/director. And on a Star Trek film, this is not - nor has it ever been - a simple feat.

Now You See Me 2 (2016)

The soundtrack by Brian Tyler, folks! The soundtrack!

[7/10 · 3 August 2018]

I could have written this review for 'Now You See Me I', as my appreciation for Tyler's work started there, but I thought I'd skip it, as he outdid himself in the second part. Yes, the NYSM films are arguably one of the most plot hole ridden franchises in Hollywood (not speaking about the non-decision if magic now is actually an existing thing or not), but strangely I found that after watching the first one and simply accepting the aforementioned fact I was able to really enjoy the second one. And I will re-view the first one as well with this attitude. Those are simply enjoyable films with good actors, nice scenery and lighthearted stories. But I want to direct your focus on something else I rarely read about here: The music by Brian Tyler. You may say about him what you want, but he really created an exception here. In our times, real pop-rock drums (I am not talking programmed drums and loops) as addition to orchestral music have fallen out of grace - Tyler was one of the first to bring them back. And boy, he knows how. In my world, the NYSM score is one of the most inventive soundtracks of our time. Not only does Tyler create a really powerful combination of orchestral and pop/rock music, he also manages to deliver a theme (or leitmotif) one is able to whistle after leaving the theater - also something that is not standard anymore, as soundtracks have become more like acoustic wallpaper these days. The music is really versatile in the most profound way. Just listen to 'The Setup' as a prime example. He morphs through all kinds of style from pop, rock, soul, swing and jazz in one single piece. And his real drums lend a power to the music that is unprecedented. Others have also started to incorporate this style of drumming in their music, but never as virtuosic as Tyler does here. If you like popcorn flicks, give the NYSMs try, and if you're into movie scores, keep your ears open. An oh, by the way: Listen to 'Can you dig it', his end title version of 'Iron Man 3' - it's right up there on the same level.