Change Your Image
BlackLemonTea
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Sonne und Beton (2023)
On second viewing still phenomenal; one of the year's best!
I loved the allegory which the computer robbery displayed. The youth in this film is a product of their environment and they act out of poverty and necessity, however they eliminate precisely *the* resource, which would catapult them out of poverty (=education). A vicious double. Very well written.
The soundtrack is monstrous (especially with Dolby Surround Sound). This is one of the main reasons I consider watching this movie for a third time in theatres. When Lukas doesn't get into school at the beginning of the movie and he pulls out his MP3 player and walks through Gropius... that's where Luvre47's song "Aussicht Trist" plays and it perfectly encapsulates this concrete jungle. Crass, bleak and aggressive sound with a frustrated and fed up delivery from Luvre. One could also argue that it sounds like a modern "Aggro Berlin" track. Great choice to support the visuals of the concrete landscape.
In general, I found the songs that were integrated very fitting and managed to pull us back to the early 2000s. Also great eye for detail in general when it comes to world building and authentic display of the time frame the movie is set in.
The initial montage with these "fancy" and advertisement-esque effects were a bit too much though, IMO. Felt like "40+ year old director trying to reach the younger audience and thinks that these kind of effects would please the TikTok generation". Kind of reminded me of that "how do you do fellow kids"-meme.
Some scenes were absolutely phenomenal acting wise. Lukas arguing with his father about the stolen computers, the first appearance of Lukas's brother (Luvre47!), the private conversation between Lukas and his guidance counselor, Sanchez arguing with his mother, the whole sequence at the beginning with the fight between the Arabs and Turks... immaculate casting!
Scenes were dramaturgically and technically well written. I found that all the introductions of main characters were well done. When a new character appeared, one could immediately sense what kind of personality the character possessed.
I'm still not over the moon over Julius's character, and do think he is an exaggerated caricature as opposed to the authentic and down to earth portrayal of the other main characters, BUT on second viewing he irritated me far less than on my first viewing. Still, to me the major weak point of the movie.
In some rare cases you could still notice the very German and mainstream-audience flavor of the movie (especially comedic relief jokes), but all in all it definitely leans more towards art house drama than crowd pleasing blockbuster. Still a strong 8/10.
Doctor Strange (2016)
Visually stunning movie that still sticks to the Marvel formula
Doctor Strange is different than most superhero movies through its intricate subject and mindboggling visuals; however the movie fails to overcome its reputation as "just another superhero movie in the Marvel universe".
But before I discuss that, let me explain why the movie still makes the top 3 of best Marvel movies (because I do think that Marvel has the ability to create entertaining movies). To begin with, the visual style of "Doctor Strange" was epic. It had something Inception-esque to it. This aspect really brought something different to the universe and made the cinematic experience for the audience phenomenal. I think this is the movie's biggest strength. On a further note, the 3-D effects worked very well. I was very skeptical of watching Doctor Strange in 3-D because usually movies do not tend to use the full potential of this technology, but to my surprise it was far better than I expected and there were some cool scenes in which the 3-D was used perfectly.
I loved Benedict Cumberbatch. He performed his role in a brilliant manner and was definitely key to the success of this film. I don't want to spoil too much, but I can assure you that he nailed his role and the casting choice was brilliant.
Furthermore, I was really surprised by the movie's score. Marvel isn't popular for their use of music, but in Doctor Strange it's different. This gives the movie a certain "uniqueness". I loved it. However, I have a couple of negative aspects to mention. Let's start with the story. For me, the exposition was too long. Origin stories can be a lot of fun, but for my taste they spent too much time explaining Doctor Strange's background. I was also unimpressed by the inciting incident which seemed a bit too random to me.
Many people keep saying that Marvel solved the "bad villain problem". I disagree. The villain in Doctor Strange was yet another underdeveloped cliché enemy without clear intentions. (Mads Mikkelsen with a good performance though)
Although the fighting scenes were very amusing and looked spectacular, they became repetitive after some time.
To sum it up, Doctor Strange is a visually terrific movie, but still sticks too much to Marvel's formula by using a lot of funny one- liners, stiffly following the same plot patterns and spending less time to explore the depth of the villain. A lot of potential was wasted. But then again, it was finally something different and new compared to the usual superhero movies. "Doctor Strange" might not be a revolutionary movie in the industry, but it set its mark as a rather experimental superhero movie in the Marvel universe and perhaps might influence future projects. 7/10
The Big Short (2015)
A story that was necessary to be told
"The Big Short" centers around a few outsiders who want to make huge profit of the falling housing market which is connected to the huge economical collapse in 2008/2009. Christian Bale, Steve Carrel, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt lead the cast. Although it is a very serious topic the story is narrated in a humorous way.
Let me start off with the many positive aspects of the film. To begin with, I liked how some characters broke the fourth wall occasionally. That is a very nice way of narrating the intricate topic. I am not really into economy and trading and have barely knowledge in that area, and I guess I am not the only one. I believe screenwriter Charles Randolph and director/writer Adam McKay knew this and tried to find a good and entertaining way to solve this problem. By breaking the fourth wall the audience gets "taken" into the story, we are made part of it (and if you think about it, we actually are part of it since the demise of the housing market influenced many of us). At many points I felt as if it was an educational movie. I really liked that. Moreover, the fourth wall played a vast role in terms of comedy.
Furthermore, I absolutely fell in love with the editing. Extraordinary work was done by Hank Corwin. Some of the best editing I have seen this year. It was an unusual kind of editing and I needed some time to "adapt" to this, but the result was phenomenal. Quick cuts, freezes, zooms, unexpected cuts, montages etc. Outstanding work, I wouldn't be surprised if "The Big Short" wins the Oscar for "Best Editing".
Another great aspect of this movie was the acting. Steve Carell, you're a genius. The way he played his highly-flawed character was simply gorgeous. You hated him, but you loved him simultaneously. Christian Bale impressed me, too, as always. That guy is a chameleon. The roles he plays are simply unique and he always "transforms" to that character. I loved it. While Steve Carell and Christian Bale were the standouts, the rest of the cast did a very good job, too. I am not only talking about Brad Pitt, who played a different kind of role this time and from whom I would have liked to see more, or Ryan Gosling, who made a splendid comeback after having an acting break. I am talking about the whole cast. Everyone in the movie did a very solid job and fulfilled their respective role. Even the minor roles impressed heavily. That must have been one hell of a casting director.
As I mentioned before, the movie is narrated in a funny way. I liked the humor. It was a perfect mixture of comedy and drama. They did not overdo it with the jokes. Additionally, the timing was immaculate every time. But I think what made the movie funny was the result of characters that were "caricatures" of real people. The exaggerated way they were represented made it so much fun to follow the characters that partly drove the story.
The only thing missing was a memorable and unique soundtrack in my opinion. Do not understand me wrong, the tracks used in the movie were good, but one soundtrack with one "theme" would have been better I guess (see "Spotlight" for instance). The track that was playing during the trailer for example was fantastic and I would have preferred to hear more of that.
All in all, "The Big Short" was an important movie telling a crucial story that addresses us all. It was a necessary piece of work. I loved the way it was narrated. The fourth wall, the editing and of course the writing played a big role in that. Did I understand everything? Hell no. Do I feel a little bit more educated? Definitely. The motion picture fulfilled its role in a funny and entertaining way. 8/10
Spotlight (2015)
Use your voice
I felt goosebumps all over my skin when the credits began. "Spotlight" is a spectacular movie with an important message.
Let me begin by saying that this movie perfectly illustrates why it is important to act and to not look away. People have to use their voices, express their opinions and inform other people if they want to make a change in society. In this case, a group of journalists from "The Boston Globe" called "Spotlight" try to solve the case of priests who raped children throughout decades and simultaneously start a war against the church.
The motion picture is well-shot. Although the movie is coined by its message, plot and dialogues, director Tom McCarthy still managed it to find opportunities to impress visually. There are some beautiful shots captured. Furthermore, the score (by Howard Shore) is simply spectacular. I'm currently listening to it while writing this. I feel joy, motivation and sadness at the same time. It is a world-class piece of music. As I said, the movie relies on its plot. The writing is simply great. There is a clear structure, we cut back and forth in scenes, the dialogues are superb and it is all well-paced thus one does not lose any interest in following the story. Acting-wise the movie does not disappoint. Everyone knows their role. The standouts are Mark Ruffalo and Michael Keaton in my opinion, although Rachel McAdams and Liev Schreiber did a terrific job as well. Moreover, the supporting cast (meaning little roles that only have less than 10 minutes of screen time) was phenomenal. Cheers to the casting director. By the way, I enjoyed how the life of a journalist was depicted. I was intrigued by how much effort many people put in these stories.
To sum it up, I highly recommend "Spotlight". It is an inspiring motion picture and delivers important values and tells a crucial story. Currently I rate it as a 8 of 10, because of minor reasons. But as far as I know myself, I'll probably give it a higher rating after reading the script and watching the movie for a second time.
Steve Jobs (2015)
Think differently
I liked the movie "Steve Jobs" very much, although it is definitely not a movie for everyone.
Michael Fassbender plays the leading role (Steve Jobs) and delivers the best performance of his acting career. Aaron Sorkin proves once again that he is one of the best writers in the movie business because of his beautiful dialogs. I absolutely love his works (i.e. Moneyball, The Social Network and many others). Similar to "The Social Network" the plot switches between times to illustrate different passages of the character's life. The movie is divided in 3 acts and is set in 1984, 1988 and 1998. The supporting cast is great, too. Kate Winslet is simply gorgeous and Seth Rogen surprised me positively. Famous director Danny Boyle tried to achieve something similar that the director of Birdman (2014) attempted. We follow the main character step by step without anything being left out. I liked the idea and it was well-implemented. The movie score is very decent as well.
All in all, I enjoyed every second of this movie, even though it is "different" than the casual movies you watch. I can understand if people don't like it since the structure is quite unusual. However, I believe Aaron Sorkin, Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet will be among the favorites for their respective categories in this year's Academy Awards.
Beasts of No Nation (2015)
No One Is Born A Beast
When the film was released on Netflix I couldn't help myself but watch it immediately. This brave, powerful and intense motion picture transmits real and genuine images and is a piece of brilliance.
"Beasts of No Nation" tells the story of a young and innocent boy called "Agu" who lives under poor circumstances in a not-mentioned African country. The brutal civil war takes away his family and Agu suddenly finds himself in a group of child soldiers and becomes one of them. Throughout the movie the protagonist gets confronted with the meaning of death, morality and immorality and value of family and unity.
There is plenty to say and discuss about this stunning movie which is one aspect of the film I loved; it provokes the viewer's mind and dramatizes a huge issue that deserves awareness and importance. Children used for violence and criminal causes are an ongoing topic and happens right now and I doubt that I have to discuss whether this is right or wrong. Personally, I had to remind myself more than once that what I see on screen might be happening at this very moment.
The movie is perfectly depicting the ugly truth of war. Furthermore, it is shown how easy it is to manipulate a kid's mind and make them do anything by encouraging them, supporting/nurturing the wrong side of the human nature (violence), giving them a feel of brotherhood/unity/affiliation and partly by the usage of drugs to stimulate their senses and conciseness. The "soldiers" we are talking about are innocent children and not grownups. I enjoyed how the film bluntly confronted me with the obnoxious and horrific reality in a very atmospheric and intense way.
Although the movie relied heavily on the pictures we see, it contained beautiful writing, too. The main characters (the aforementioned Agu and the Commandant) are greatly written. They are genuine and show a lot of depth. One feels really connected and bonded to Agu, especially because of his innocence. He is just a normal boy having fun on the streets and enjoying time with his family, but when his father and brother are killed he must flee and ends up in that horrible army of underage soldiers. I call that great writing. In addition, the story contains a lot of irony which is always exciting to watch.
There are more reasons why the writing was stupendous. It was very well paced. You never felt boredom. The scenes were never too long or too short, it was perfectly timed. The movie never was dragging or moving too fast. You were hooked.
Naturally, a good character needs to be portrayed well, too. Abraham Attah plays the role of the protagonist. Agu is not the most complex character, but Attah delivers a more than solid performance (I also consider it very difficult to work with young actors, thus I respect the performance even more and rate it higher). Additionally, the acting of the children in the army was great, too. They reminded me of a wild pack of savages or animals and totally fulfilled their respective roles.
But the star of this movie clearly is Idris Elba. Wow - I cannot find words to describe how good he was. He absolutely stood out of the movie regarding acting. Despite knowing his name and face I have never seen a movie in which Elba had a significant role (except Thor) and neither have I watched "Luther", but now I definitely know what an incredible actor he is. Idris Elba plays the Commandant of the army and is a highly respected man amongst them and gets along well with everyone. You shouldn't like him at all because of the horrible situation, but Elba yet manages it to let the audience feel sympathy for him. As the movie moves on, we discover that "The Commandant" isn't quite the man we supposed him to be. He is a man who has an unhealthy abundance of pride and the urge to gain more power which eventually leaves him all alone. He is not a leader, he is a reckless ruler led by bad intentions.
Currently, I see Idris Elba amongst one of the biggest contenders for the "Best Supporting Actor" award and wish him lots of luck.
Another outstanding element of the movie is the cinematography. There are sundry shots that make you wonder what one person can do with a single camera and a vision.
Cary Joji Fukunga was not only responsible for the movie's spectacular cinematography, but he also wrote and directed this marvelous motion picture. This man is a genius, as simple as that. I consider him as one of the biggest aspiring filmmakers for the future, although he already has impressed me in the past with his contribution as director for the show "True Detective" (Season 1). I am looking forward to watch his other movies.
The only negative aspects I can mention are the following two: The climax partly disappointed me regarding how good the rest of this movie was (maybe the slight lack of suspense was the reason). Secondly, the movie underwent a few clichés in the "war-genre" (i.e. the protagonist having to kill someone for the first time although he is aware of the moral conflict). Other than that I did not find any other striking negatives.
In conclusion, "Beasts of No Nation" is one of the best movies you will see this year and definitely worth watching. The cinematography, the writing, the acting and the topic are either good or extraordinary. Judging out of my own perspective, it has been a unique experience and I can only recommend the movie. 8/10
San Andreas (2015)
A Movie That Describes Today's Hollywood
San Andreas basically tells the story of the heroic rescue-chopper pilot Ray (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) who is about to divorce with his wife (and consequently be more distant to his loved daughter). Suddenly a massive earthquake appears in California and destroys everything. Ray sets his goal to rescue his family and other people while the whole city and its buildings fall apart.
Let me start off with the plot. There is not much to say - and especially nothing good. The reason is easy to explain: The plot is very, very predictable. First we get introduced to the main character who is a real hero and whose job it is to save lives. Suddenly a big event occurs and forces the hero to save even more lives. Of course many obstacles appear and he needs to solve them no matter what it costs. The movie uses tons of clichés and is not original or creative in any way. The same happens over and over again: Buildings fall apart, lives get saved, people try to survive, more buildings are destroyed and lives get saved. Oh, and even more buildings suddenly crash. If you want to teach someone why using clichés make your movie or script worse, then simply show them this movie and if they have a brain they will understand.
On top of that the characters are even more boring than the plot. Father who faces divorce papers but wants to stay near to his daughter that he loves so much? God, that's a great idea and I have never heard about that before. A city gets destroyed because of a huge event and the protagonist needs to solve the problems in a heroic manner? Great ideas, great writing
*sarcasm off* I think I made my point clear. The characters are flat and do not give me much reason to care for them. Furthermore the acting is below average. I think "The Rock" is a very like-able personality off the camera, but as an actor he is disastrous. But I do not only blame him, the whole cast does not seem to be very convinced of what they are doing. The flat character design does not help either.
I have more negative aspects to mention, but to cut it short I will just sum them up briefly. The dialogs were horrendous and uninteresting, the visual effects disappointed as well (considering the time we live in and comparatively to other movies like "Jurassic World" or "The Avengers") and the movie did not really have much suspense that could have made it at least a tiny bit exciting. The only positives I took from the film were some good long shots of some building that were beautiful to watch.
Let me finish this review with a final rant. This movie sums up the current situation of Hollywood.
I recently watched a discussion between a few screenwriters about how the industry works and evolved over the centuries. Everyone agreed that today's movie industry targets twelve-years-old children who beg their parents to let them watch the newest action flick with their favorite movie star. Of course this might be an exaggeration and generalizes the situation, but I partly agree with this statement. This is the reason why "The Avengers" or "Jurassic World" or even "San Andreas" have a better box office than movies that were supposed to be movies and not just mediums used to earn a lot of money. Hollywood is not a movie industry anymore, it is a money industry. Alright, to be fair, money has always been a huge part in Hollywood. But at least in the past there were actual filmmakers who cared for the content, the characters, the story and the FILM. All that is very rarely seen in today's Hollywood.
To make it clear, naturally there have been trashy movies in the 80s or 70s and before as well, but today these movies unfortunately dominate the market, or at least it seems like that.
Prominent names like Dwayne Johnson (who no doubt is a cool guy off- screen but a rather weak performer on screen), attractive faces like Alexandra Daddario and scripts that don't want the audience to think much and contain a lot of over-the-top-action and funny gags (and make you wonder why you aren't a successful writer) is what coins Hollywood currently. Why? Because that's the way you make money. I find that deeply sad and worrying. There are just a handful of movies I am looking forward to watch this year.
To sum it up, San Andreas is a waste of time and money. If the filmmakers don't care, why should I do? Save your money for the movies coming out this winter (for example "The Revenant" or "Macbeth") instead of spending it on this one. 4/10
Southpaw (2015)
Haven't I seen this one before?
Southpaw is a movie about the successful boxing champion Billy Hope (Jake Gyllenhaal) whose life begins to fall apart because he cannot control his high temper.
To begin with, the story line is simple and not very original. The protagonist who has everything suddenly loses everything and needs to find a new way to win it all back. Haven't I seen this before? And I'm not even talking about movies in general. Actually, one can find boxing movies with a very similar story (for instance Rocky II or Raging Bull).
The characters depth is nothing near to the ones we see in "Raging Bull" or "Warrior" (movies in which motivations and reasons of characters are more complex and interesting). In Southpaw, the characters lack depth, thus they become a tad boring. Personally, I felt like flat character design was one of the main issues of this movie. Furthermore, you always felt like someone already told this story in a much better way. Why should I waste my time to watch a poor remake? Naturally, this sounds harsh and may be a little exaggerated, but I honestly believe this is the major aspect of the movie that annoyed me – unoriginality and the incorporation of many clichés.
I would still recommend you this movie, only because of two people: Jake Gyllenhaal and Forest Whitaker. These two tremendous actors made this movie not a total waste of time. As aforementioned, Gyllenhaal plays in the lead, portraying the struggling fighter Billy Hope. It is a stupendous performance from a brilliant actor. Although the character is partly despicable and should be hated, one does still feel for him. That is the work of a master in his craft. Academy Award winner Whitaker plays Tick Wills, an older gym owner who later becomes Billy's mentor and new coach after his demise. The relation between those two characters is the best one in the whole movie. What happens when chaos and fury meet experience and discipline? These two spectacular actors were the absolute highlight of the movie, which makes it a bit frustrating to see so less of them on screen. The filmmakers rather concentrated on Billy's relation with his daughter than on the one I found deeply entertaining.
This leads to my other point. I found that the role of Oona Laurence was a miscast. She plays the daughter of Billy and is devastated after a certain incident. Things between her and Billy do not work quite well (I can just recall, "Haven't I seen this before?") The only scene of this side story that touched me was when Billy got slapped in the face by his own daughter. That's it, nothing more. Moreover, I did not like Laurence in the movie. No offense, but she was not very convincing and rather annoying.
On the other hand, I thought that the rest of the cast delivered. Rachel McAdams and even 50cent impressed me – gorgeous casting.
All in all, the movie was nothing exceptional or anything to remember. I think "average" sums it up pretty well. Southpaw did not quite live up to my high expectations, although having some great actors on board. What you see was nothing original or mind-blowing, it felt like a bad "Raging Bull" spin off. I can still recommend the movie to people who love sport movies in general and want to see some great acting. Otherwise, leave it and don't watch it. 6/10
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
one of the best action movies ever made
First of all, I need to say that I watched the extended version of "Terminator II: Judgment Day" (153 minutes) and not the cinema version (137 minutes).
Before watching this movie I had high expectations. Not just because of the IMDb-rating, also because the movie is arguably considered as one of the best action movies of all time and won four Academy Awards.
Throughout the film I wasn't bored for a single moment. Exactly that is what makes an action movie great. I didn't expect thought- provocative topics to be discussed or heartbreaking dialogues. All a good movie from the action genre needs is following:
To begin with, the directing of this movie (by the amazing James Cameron) was incredibly well done. The camera has been stellar due to the sundry shots and different methods used to catch the action scenes. This made the movie more exciting to watch. Moreover, the music was perfect. I feel like this aspect is a tad too underrated after reading other reviews. It's always fitting to the situation and creates an intense atmosphere.
Another aspect to discuss is the acting. I was surprised. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only person I can imagine to play the role of Terminator T-800. His style and pronunciation is simply hilarious. After being the villain in the first movie, one feels sympathy towards Arnie. On the other hand we see Linda Hamilton playing the role of Sarah Conner, a valiant woman switching from a mother yearning after her son and a psycho woman disobeying the rules and hurting people. She seriously impressed me which was unexpected. Finally, we should talk about Edward Furlong. He plays John Conner, the soon to be hero who is key for humanity to survive in the future. Edward Furlong plays the role of the child, and I have to be honest: I thought that he was pretty annoying and frustrating to watch in the beginning. He's the typical kid from the block that breaks rules, does whatever he wants and acts like a provocative scumbag. But from time to time you got to know him more and more and catch yourself liking him. Also the acting of Furlong improved during the movie, in my opinion.
The visual and special effects are stupendous. Even in 2015 these effects would be considered as good. I liked it and imagine it to be even more amazing in the 90s.
The writing and the dialogs weren't exceptional or mind-blowing, but it was surely good enough for an action-sci-fi-movie.
Although the story was in general near to the first movie, it had more depth. The character development and progression of relation between each character was great to follow. Compared to other action movies, this one's script is original and different (in a good way).
All in all, "Terminator 2" is a fantastic sequel and as an action movie near to perfection. I enjoyed most of it and it never disappointed – always delivering, scene after scene. The all- inclusive-entertainment-package. I highly recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't watched it yet. Watching the first movie is not a condition, even though it was not bad.
Argo (2012)
Worth Watching
The Movie "Argo" deals with the rescue of Americans in Iraq in the year 1979. The CIA-agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) plans a dangerous operation in which the hostages get rescued by pretending to shoot a movie. I had high expectations before watching the movie and I was definitely not disappointed. The writing and the dialogs are gorgeous. The movie contains some emotional moments, just as funny side jokes ("Argo-fuck-yourself"). Furthermore, the whole cast was incredibly good. I especially liked the performance of Ben Affleck, Heisenbe- I mean, Bryan Cranston, Lester Siegel and the hostages. The acting was really convincing for me. Also the storyline is innovative and catchy (I know that it's based on a real happening). The inclusion of real-life footage at the beginning of the movie is an interesting idea as well. Honestly, I'm not even sure if the footage was real, but I don't care, because the director convinced me that it WAS. Good job on creating atmosphere. On the other hand, I have a few negative aspects I'd like to mention. Firstly, the "dramatic turning point" everyone was waiting for, was a bit too obvious. The mission nearly fails but with a little bit of luck the hostages still get rescued. I think there was way more potential to create a better ending. Secondly, I mentioned that I liked the performance of Ben, and I still do, but in my opinion his character was too flat. We, as the audience, barely knew anything about him. HIM, the MAIN CHARACTER. There has been a lot of time left to add some information about "Tony Mendez", to highlight his relation to his family and give him more depth. Lastly, I did not like that the Iranians were ALL represented as assholes who are violent. All in all, the movie was a success. Great cast, lovely plot, good creation of atmosphere and also the costume/make-up (whatever) team made a nice job. 8/10 stars from me.