Change Your Image
RMFendt
Reviews
Big Stan (2007)
Not. Funny.
I hat the 'privilege' of watching this movie as a surprise feature in a local theater, and it was close, so very close to becoming the second movie I ever walked out from. In one word: awful. More appropriate and in five words: "oh please, make it stop". I have no idea what kind of crazy befell movie executives when they decided to bring an old direct-to-video title from the US to German theaters.
The 'humor' in the flick (for want of a better word) is almost completely based on icky scenes, violence and crude sexual innuendo. Especially because of the latter this movie is not really appropriate for youngsters, which is really rather ironic since immature boys are probably the only audience that would find this insulting excuse of a motion picture even remotely funny. The rest of the world (i.e., grown-ups) will find that crude references to anal rape do not suddenly become funny if you repeat them about three dozen times. The same goes for body liquids and icky-food jokes.
Apart from that, the whole premise of the film does not work, either. The idea of having a weakling become a prison's chief bully might have looked amusing on paper. It is not, at least with Schneider as the main character. The script is bad, the acting is lousy, and the directing (fittingly also by Schneider) is atrocious. Verdict: avoid at all costs.
Sat sau ji wong (1998)
weird fun
I just finished watching the local DVD version of Sat sau ji wong (a.k.a. "The Contract Killer"). It was a spontaneous purchase, since I did not really know anything about the movie. This was actually a good thing, so I could watch it unprejudiced.
Well, how to describe this flick. Somehow I find that rather difficult. It has action. It has lots of humour. It is a very strange mix, but somehow it works. At least if you like Hong Kong action movies in general. I was reminded of the "Police Story" series, although this is not a completely fitting analogy I admit.
The story revolves around a newcomer hit-man (Jet Li) who is desperate for an assignment. He seems to be lucky, since just before a Japanese mafia boss has been killed, who had set up a "revenge fund" prior to his assassination. The reward for finding the murderer, the "king of hit men" is very handsome indeed: 100 million dollars.
Our "hero" meets a luckless con-man (Eric Tsang), who helps him get the assignment, together with a bunch of competitors. Things get ugly when the brutal and power-hungry grandson of the deceased decides to participate in the game as well.
By Hollywood standards, most Hong Kong productions would count as B-movies, but this is clearly an understatement here. Okay, maybe they did not have the biggest budget in the world. But they clearly made an effort to achieve the maximum possible, including the actors. Yes, the actors really live up to the word, *unlike* in many, many American B-movie productions. And since this film is not "just" an action flick, Jet Li actually has to do a bit of real acting as well, and this is a welcome change, too.
Serenity (2005)
...wow.
Make no mistake: this is neither like Star Trek nor Babylon 5. Nor is it like Star Wars. This is better. Way, way better. "Serenity" is a spin-off of "Firefly", which is --in my humble opinion-- at the same time the best and most underrated science fiction series ever made.
"Serenity" is actually the name of a ship. Being a "firefly" class freighter, we see an old, battered ship that has definitely seen better times, like her crew. This one has no sleek design, or any hidden gadgets that make her exceptional. She is just a ship, old and sturdy. Her crew is a conglomerate of different characters who all have things to hide or memories to forget and who all have their own reasons for being on the "Serenity", forming a sort-of dysfunctional family. The captain is Malcom Reynolds, the most-cynical son-of-a-bitch I have ever seen in a sci-fi flick.
And this is what makes Serenity exceptional. It is not about a revolution, not about a big war. Not about uber-humans exploring space, bringing peace and understanding everywhere. No altruistic heroes to be found. This is not George Lucas and not Gene Roddenberry. This is Joss Whedon, and thus deals with human beings. Feeling, hurting human beings.
Serenity shows us what the Star Trek universe would be like if it was inhabited by actual people. We see what the price of forcibly-induced "peace" and "freedom" is. And yes, we have a sort-of "evil empire" as well, which is cynically named "Alliance". But here, the rebels have lost, because they were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. We see a society that has deep-running issues and is held together by little more than force and deceit. In this world, the "Serenity" and her crew try to survive, by stealing, smuggling and doing odd-jobs; they do pretty much anything short of murder, if it gives a profit.
Not quite part of their little family are the Tams. Simon and his sister River. Both are quite exceptional, with Simon being a brilliant surgeon and River being nothing short of a class of her own. Both are on the run from the Alliance, and more than once Mal struggles with himself about whether it is smart to keep them aboard.
Serenity is one of the most intelligent movies I have seen in a long time. It is witty as well; anyone who knows Whedon's works will expect this. But the humor mostly acts as relief for the cynical and dark tone of the film: as I said-- this is about humans, not about angels.
Highlander (1986)
A modern classic
Like many, I grew up with Highlander. Not to have seen it is almost unthinkable to someone in my generation. Man, do I sound old right now. After all, this flick is almost 20 years old. Okay, granted, I did not see it at the movies, since I was a teensy bit too young at the time. See, so I am not *that* old. But there was the video release and the DVD and the television series and... so, like I said, I grew up with it, so please be lenient if I am a bit biased.
The movie is groundbreaking in a few ways. First of all, there is the score. This is actually the first film as far as I remember that makes such strong use of music. It is almost like watching a video clip. Which is not too surprising, given that the director started with exactly that, if I recall correctly... There are some nice special effects, although these appear a bit outdated today, of course. And last but not least it was a kind of jump start for Lambert and Brown. Although I must say that in my opinion the actors' performance is not what makes this film worthwhile... *ahem*. Especially Lambert did mostly B-movies afterwards; of course, in some aspects, even Highlander could qualify as one...
A special case is Sean Connery. Already a "big" name at the time, his manner makes quite clear that he did not have to do this, but did anyway because it was fun. So he is the least serious of all characters, and somehow the most interesting. Of course he is not "the hero" in the film, but he easily steals Lambert the show.
I suggest watching this movie as you would take a roller-coaster ride: don't stop, don't watch too closely, just enjoy the ride. That way, it simply cannot go wrong. The movie might not be what can be called "art", but it *is* very entertaining.
Just one point left to mention: this movie most certainly does not have any "sequels". At least not any worth watching or even worth mentioning. There are movies that should not have to have suffered from catastrophic sequel-making. And this is a prime example.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Worst of the three
Well, after a brilliant start and a quite disappointing sequel, the third one could do one of two things: make it better, or make it worse. Make an impressive ending, putting the second part into perspective. Or make a cheesy, unimaginative ending, and let it all go down the gutter.
Unfortunately, the Wachowski's did the latter. Oh, where to begin. With the first one being a quite intelligent film, and the second one just a dumb action flick, they actually managed to undercut "Reloaded". Oh yes sir, they did.
This part is (again, alas) a simple "good guys vs. bad guys" action flick. The "heavily outnumbered heroes against certain end of humanity" aspect was strong, too, and emphasised just a bit too much. Nothing new here. In other words: I was bored. *Yawn*.
The special effects: again nice, but nothing new, either. The whole thing is a seamless continuation of the second part. It looks and feels much the same. Someone clearly ran out of ideas here.
The worst part of this film, however, is it's ending. It is cheesy. It is corny. It is boring. I sat there in the cinema, thinking 'What? That's *it*? Come on, you have to be f***ing kidding me here!'. The first part definitely did not deserve this. So not all that starts well ends well, too. Take my advice, and save your money. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't watch it. You'll just be sorry.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Mediocre
After seeing the first installment of this series over and over again, my expectations where high indeed. That sequels can work and not be worse than their counterparts has been demonstrated by the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and "Kill Bill". That sequels sometimes do not work at all, on the other side, is shown quite impressively by the "Matrix" trilogy.
Seriously, what were they thinking? 'Well, we are out of ideas, but the first one was a big box office success, so we simple *have* to do a sequel!'? Well, it has had to be something like this, otherwise I cannot understand why they released this pile of horse droppings.
Okay, the special effects are again quite nice, although there are scenes where you can see quite clearly that it is all mainly CG. The "wow" effect is gone, of course, and we do not see much that is genuinely new. So, from the "eye candy" point of view, this sequel does not add much.
Story-wise it is even worse. We see lots of new characters, mainly inside the Matrix. All this seems like a zoo of some sorts, because not one of these characters is actually important or unique. They are just bizarre, and form the setting for a string of (albeit impressive) action scenes.
And this is what is left of the first "Matrix": an uninteresting action flick. No philosophical reflexion, no unanswered questions anymore. Everything that made "The Matrix" interesting has vanished here, being replaced by a simple "good vs. bad" theme. And after a (too) long series of fight and flight sequences it simply... stops.
Yes, the second and third part of the "Matrix" should more likely be one long film rather than two separate installments. The ending of this part (if it can be called that) is quite unsatisfying: one simply is left hanging in thin air. Upshot: very disappointing.
The Matrix (1999)
Brilliant
When I first saw this movie, I was astonished. Ground-breaking special effects, the coolest theme you could imagine, great characters, a gripping story. Since then I have seen this movie several times, and never got bored of it.
What makes Matrix work so well is not the hard rock/metal/industrial score, although this greatly helps establishing the overall mood. It is not the expertly-done camera work. It is not the breath-taking special effects and the perfect timing and general craftsmanship. All this helps, of course, but what makes Matrix so brilliant is that the story is actually creative. It raises philosophical questions, the most important one being "what is reality?". The actors do their part to make the story believable enough, so that one really does not want to this film to end, ever.
Of course there are also goofs of some sort. The reason for the very existence of "The Matrix" for example is quite silly, from a physical point of view. But somehow, this is completely unimportant when watching the film.
What remains is a brilliant, expertly done piece of cinematographic work, a masterpiece. And then they blew it in the sequels, but that is another story.
Guest House Paradiso (1999)
Catastrophic
Wow, this film was terrible. It is as simple as that. It is actually the first time that I walked out early, as far as I can remember. This turned out okay, though: I had a very nice chat with two most charming girls while we all waited for the rest to finally give up on that crap they called a "movie".
Where to start. Bad acting, bad jokes. Faecal humour, which I simply cannot stand. Sorry, but snot, pee and scat are *not* funny. You have seen the title picture? That scene actually drags on for about 5 minutes, with the two "heroes" hitting and mutilating each other, which is supposed to be humorous all by itself. It is not.
Apart from body fluids, violence and cross-dressing, I do not remember much about this. At least not much good. I was really, really disappointed by this piece of garbage. Or let us be honest here: given that I am actually a big fan of "british" (i.e., black) humour, I was angry.
So, want my advice? Three words: do not watch.
El día de la bestia (1995)
Cool idea
This movie is a classic example of a great idea suffering from low budget. It is like a B-movie by Tarantino. Or Kevin Smith maybe. Or a crossover of both meeting a film by John Carpenter. This is definitively a B-movie of some sorts, but a well-made one.
The whole thing is a bit strange (which in my opinion is not a bad thing), and the characters are... well, unusual. And the story has a nice twist to it. Many, many good ideas, although violence and humor are not always too well-balanced: sometimes they simply clash. But at the end, it works quite nicely. Don't mind the few gaping holes in the plot, just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Not quite as good as part #1, but close
After watching the first part of this vengeful film duo, I had certain expectations from the second part. Imagine my face when I realized in the cinema that they were completely wrong. Part two is not "just a continuation" of the first one. Anyone who expects it to be is going to be disappointed.
After a few minutes of adaptation, however, I slowly fell in love with the second "Bill", too. Its mood is totally different, the visual style, the pace. Which is, I am quite certain, exactly as Tarantino wanted it to be. In some ways, it is not quite Tarantino-ish. In others very much so. Like the loving details of each scene. The great camera work. And the master craftsmanship in general.
So, how is this one different? It is slower. It is less violent. It gives the characters actual room for development. The music is totally different, too, which can mostly be credited to the fact that this is the first time a QT film has "custom-made" music. Somehow it all works. Again.
To sum it up: this is another masterpiece by QT. It is perhaps not quite as brilliant as the first half (that is always a risk with sequels), but it is a very close call. It is like the other side of a coin. Completely different, but still alike. If you can, invest the 4h and watch both parts in sequence. Only then you will experience the complete magic of "Kill Bill".
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Breath-taking
Okay, I will admit. I have been a big fan of Tarantino's works for a long time. So my expectations of this one were high indeed. And Tarantino delivers. It is hard, it is violent, it is fast. And expertly done, as always. And the musical accompaniment is, while somewhat peculiar, as with most QT films, of very high quality, and greatly helps setting the mood of the film.
No one but QT could tell a simple tale of revenge that lasts over 4h (including part #2) without it becoming boring. Here we see that it can work, however: one simply never gets bored, not for one second. Call it Tarantino's magic. Visually: a feast; the actors: brilliant; the story-telling: gripping.
So, is this "instant classic" material? It certainly is. Is this one of the best movies Quentin ever did? Oh yes. Is it for any audience? Nope. But which Tarantino film (with the possible exception of Jackie Brown) ever was?
Ghosts of Mars (2001)
Entertaining
Who expects the next candidate for "best film" from John Carpenter? I certainly do not. But his films have a certain charm. They all have certain B-movie qualities, which by itself is not a bad thing. "Ghosts" has virtually no story, but hey-- it does not matter. It has a kick-ass soundtrack, done by the maestro himself (as usual) with the help of certain well-known metal and hardrock bands (not usual). The whole thing has style. As "Vampires" and "Escape from New York" have.
Its narrative structure is unusally non-chronological, the setting has a mostly realistic feel to it and the actors are not all that bad. Although Pam Grier definitively has seen better times, movie-wise. But we get Ice Cube and Natasha Henstridge. And what the heck, I never watched a Carpenter for the depth of character development. His movies manage something that too many big-budget productions fail at: they entertain. And certainly, "Ghosts" is fun to watch, like the usual "good guys vs. bad guys BAM BAM" computer game. Not very sophisticated, okay. But still it works quite well, somehow.
A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Burtonesque
Well, I have to admit I have not read the books (yet). At first I was pleasantly surprised by this film, towards the end I was in love. The whole film is strange, the characters are total wackos, and the whole thing is just-- beautiful. As a devoted Burton-worshiper I can tell you: this movie could have been a 'Burton'. Great costumes, brilliant actors, and just this "not too real" touch that makes Tim's films so special.
Especially Carrey really shines here. Unfortunately he did not do too many real film gems in the past, which is a real shame, since in my opinion he is a great actor. But apart from the "Truman Show" and the "Grinch" (and maybe "Liar Liar") he could just never show it. Come on, who would think "Ace Ventura" or "Bruce Almighty" icons of film history? I certainly do not. But in "Lemony Snicket" he is simply brilliant.
Glorifying Carrey does not mean that we see bad acting by the rest of the cast. I especially liked Connolly's and Streep's characters. Even the youngsters Liam Aiken and Emily Browning deliver good to excellent performances. We should especially expect much yet from the adorable (and talented) Browning. Though the film's pace slows down a bit at times, this is deliberate and it never "drags on". All in all: a real treat. Go watch it.
Mulan II (2004)
Disappointing
Okay, I confess, I dislike most Disney movies anyway. I did like the first Mulan film quite much, however. It had a nice story, the music score was creative and the humor was charming. But what about the sequel? Well, it has virtually no story, most of the jokes are not funny (I was especially appalled at what has become of Mushu) and the music is mediocre at best. In other words, it is boring and lacks any noticeable humor. But enough bitching. Is there something to like, you ask? Yes, of course. The familiar characters are all there and the animation is okay. So, is the movie a catastrophe? Well, no. Is it a disappointment? Oh yes. Being generous, I'd say 4-5 out of 10.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Surprisingly good - Spoilers
After two high-quality movies, I feared the worst for this one. Being the conclusion of the series, it is perhaps the most difficult one to bring into the theater. My fears were unfounded, however: Jackson did a good job.
Camera work is excellent, effects range from good to stunning-- and the narration also survives. If you accept that it is simply impossible to do an adaption of the books without changes, the changes Jackson did do become almost unimportant. The spirit is what's important-- and the spirit of the books survives once again. The actors also deliver (again) very good performance (with the notable exception of Wood: Pinocchio would have been a better actor than he), with Andy Serkins ("Gollum") being one of the best. I did not feel bored at all for most of the movie. Ok, the ending could have been a trifle shorter, but you can't have everything I guess.
One point of criticism survives: Jacksons almost-fatal love for too-solemn, slow-motion death (and pseudo-death) scenes. Frodo being stung by Kankra is simply a repetition of the cave troll scene in part one (with exactly the same facial expression Wood is so very good at...) and is the one point in the movie that was really, really boring and bad. In this respect, the scene falls in the same category as Aragorn's almost-death in part two. Well, thankfully 15 seconds cannot ruin over 3 hours of good movie. As I said, you cannot have everything.