senor_spielbergo123 Reviews

Another Round (2020)

Not just a Hangover movie

[20 May 2022]

The closest translation from the Danish title would probably be "binge drinking". And with that in mind it's a movie that questions the Danish drinking culture in general, as a quote in the movie goes: "What is it with this country and drinking?"

But addressing alcohol culture is not the only theme in the movie: It is generally speaking about living life to its fullest. There is a bit of tragic backstory closely related to this, with Vinterberg's daughter dying shortly before the movie's making. And as this movie is dedicated to her, it does a justified job of giving the audience a bit of nudge to reflect on their lives.

The camera and editing were fantastic and especially the (drunk-)acting was flawless and felt realistic.

As a fellow European I was familiar with the drinking games and occasions shown here and found it very relatable to my country. But to international audiences this may seem exaggerated, which it is not. Alcohol is a major part in social life and especially in one's youth: the legal drinking age is at 16-18 in Europe.

While I think the Best International Feature Film Oscar is deserved, I'll have to rate this movie a bit lower than Vinterberg's outstanding masterpiece "The Hunt" nonetheless. I have mainly two points of criticism.

The premise is of course not very realistic. Four middle-aged highschool teachers would not agree to start teaching with a slight buzz and later up the game even more, all as a social experiment. I think this is where audiences could get the impression they are about to watch a comedy - which it is not. In fact there are only a couple of laughs being had in the movie.

Yet, there is enough motivation to some of the characters that I am willing to suspend my disbelief. Actually the setting at a school job is a brilliant choice, since these aging teachers are confronted with youth sitting in front of them every day. And you really get that they would suddenly think "Damn, how did we get here?"

*SPOILERS*

And my second criticism comes to the predictability. It was foreseeable that their actions would backfire for the second act after everything seemed to be rosy for a while. Despite assuming where this was going the movie still surprised me with a couple of gut punches. Again, not a comedy.

And despite how bad things got, I enjoyed that the movie did not just stick with the preachy message "See? This is what alcohol does!" It rather showed us a spectrum of how different people can get affected differently.

First, I was not sure if I liked the fast tonal shift in the end. Bute the more I think about the ending the more I like it. Because the funeral of their friend could be the final wake up call to the other characters. To get their shit together and quit for good. Instead, we see that even a funeral (of an alcoholic) is yet another occasion to raise our glasses for a toast. It serves as a mirror for our society.

Overall, "Another Round" is not an excuse for drinking nor a lecture advising against drinking but rather an inspiration to live your life with a certain easygoingness. And alcohol as a catalyst can not solve all of our problems.

Blow (2001)

A biopic that doesn't blow - but that's about it

[16 May 2022]

While this based on real events drug smuggler story is certainly worth a watch if you are into these rugs-to-riches type biopics, it does not bring anything groundbreaking to the genre. It stands on its own but if you have seen classics like Goodfellas, this may seem familiar.

Former drug trafficker George Jung may have had more luck and ego than was good for him but I don't think he deserves to be portrayed in such a positive light. It should be remembered that he as an individual was responsible for fueling the addiction of most cocaine-using Americans in the 70ies.

Obviously, some parts may be fictionalized here but what was true is that he spent most of the latter part of his life in prison and for years had not been visited there by his only daughter - not until after the movie came out. The movie's over-sentimental end focused on that a lot. Again, it is questionable why Blow is so sympathetic with Jung's fate.

For me it's hard to see "Boston George" Jung and not pretty Johnny Depp - although he isn't doing a bad job at acting, there are few highlights where he excels. Penélope Cruz, however, was nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress. She does portray a stereotype of the temperamental, feisty hispanic wife and that's it.

I was invested enough in the story but I don't think this is a must-see.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Stop-motion suits Wes Anderson

[16 May 2022]

Wes Anderon's signature visual style is without a doubt unique and instantly recognizable in this day and age of cinema. It can be a bit much at times though, as a good part of his audiences will certainly have to agree with. While I will reach a point in most of is movies where I start to get slightly annoyed by the ever symmetrical camera settings and the constant dolly zooms, I have to say Anderson's visual language is absolutely suited for an animated film and not distracting here at all. If you have a hard time with Wes Anderson's work, this might be one for you!

Also, the fact they chose stop-motion animation rather than CGI worked out for Anderson's quirky vision. The characters with their slightly rough looks and fuzzy hair have so much detail and character that they feel "lived in" and real - not least because of the outstanding, star-studded voice acting.

This is where my main criticism comes in:.

The characters are in fact so likeable that I would have loved more interaction between them. The movie is rather short and doesn't have the runtime to give most of them a chance of developing any of their potential. For instance, the fox girl Agnes was dragged along for the final scene but had nothing to say or do. This gets really noticable when Mr. Fox includes her in his final speech about being with five very fine animals. Does he even know her? Also, the adversary rat (brilliantly voice-acted by Willem Dafoe) was so much fun to watch whenever he appeared. It was a shame that it was already over after his second scene.

Sadly, some of the themes here ranging from "being different", having to prove yourself, figuring out who you are ("foxes are wild animals") to love/friendship aren't really developed. I could have done without the music number or some of the chase scenes instead of a bit more character moments. Maybe this was a compromise for the kids?

I have my doubts how well this works as a family movie - it is no Pixar flick at all. Like Mark Kermode once criticized, it's very talky. And it didn't really have to be at times because the detailed animation could have been enough to speak for itself and convey feelings. The self-aware wit will mostly keep adults invested but it will at times sound awfully a lot like the voice of Wes Anderson. Therefore it has a lot of humor that will go over kids' heads but there's still enough slapstick that it might keep them entertained. Even I did burst out with a laugh a couple of times.

Antichrist (2009)

Warning: Know what you're in for!

[14 July 2021]

Usually I am a proponent for going into a movie cold. But in this case I wish I had known that halfway through this "provoking drama" turns basically into a splatter.

Spoiler: The artistically impressive prologue, stylized in Trier-trademarked slow motion, is the only thing that earns positivity in my rating. It kicks off a heartbreaking (yet meandering) journey through the stages of grief for two parents who lost their child. However, realistic depictions of what a panic attack must look like are interrupted by long, dull passages of unrealistic, clunky dialogue, sprinkled with some sex scenes. If you are wondering where this is going with all its religious subtext: suddenly you are being confronted with very graphic genital mutulation!

Something something about nature of (wo)man, commentary on misogyny... But there is also a talking fox in it.

I came to the conclusion Lars von Trier is not as clever as some people want him to be. Some things in his movies don't withstand logical examination and are just there to be artsy. Looking at you Nymphomaniac! But at least Nymphomaniac had to offer some entertaining value with its dark humor and was not a complete dour experience from beginning to end.

Note to myself: Do not bother to re-watch!

The Imitation Game (2014)

Why does this movie rewrite history? It's an enigma!

[2 August 2020]

Why is it not enough for Hollywood to just tell the story of how Enigma got cracked? Do they have so little confidence in themselves to assume they couldn't make it a worthwhile script without embellishing it with fiction? I do understand that a movie has to take a few creative liberties to more compellingly tell a real-life story about a mathematician. But I can't bear this much rewriting of history in a movie labeled as biopic!

I'll start with the things I liked: In preparation I watched a Youtube video explaining how enigma machines actually worked and how the code got cracked. I think a basic understanding of that makes the movie more enjoyable. The epiphany scene was actually my favorite one. It was also interesting to get a glimpse of wartime life in Britain but they shouldn't have bothered with the cheap looking CGI war machines.

Cumberbatch does act outstandingly which is no surprise as he already had mastered the role of a sharp genius in Sherlock. Keira Knightley was fine but I don't think the script allowed for her to really shine. However, I read that Turning's whole autistic persona was exaggerated, which I again blame on the script. Probably to fit the awkward genius Hollywood trope? This makes me question: What else is untruthful in this movie?

Well, as far as we know there were no Soviet double agents in Alan Turing's team. Also, his team was not in cahoots with MI6 to decide which decoded Nazi plans should be stopped and which ones not (as it would be a dead giveaway that they had cracked enigma).

All of that was made up so that the movie could have a bit of drama in the middle. They used a police interrogation as a framing device to bridge the 7 years after the war but it felt out of place. And the real story of Turning actually had a sad enough ending as it is, without making him a possible traitor. The government-mandated hormone therapy to "treat" his homosexuality was likely the reason for his depression and ultimately his suicide. At least the movie shows respect for some facts.

Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important Things (2015)

Not recommended as a primer

[24 July 2020]

A decent documentary that gives the audience ideas of what minimalism could look like and touches on a lot of related subjects, such as consumerism, advertisement, the nature of products, the tiny-house movement, fast fashion, Wall Street, over-consumption, climate change, careers, money can't buy you happiness, phones and meditation.

Maybe because all of that, it waters down the concept. So I would recommend it to people who are already familiar with minimalism and want to be inspired to widen their focus on some other aspects (listed above). But it's not recommended as a primer for the average consumer. Why?

It starts off with a criticism on consumerism and advertising that promises us a better life though buying products. As an alternative, the movie starts to sell minimalism as a way of life that could give you just that happiness, calmness and contentment. Just like all the ads do - a bit ironic, isn't it?

Some interviewees tell you about their troubled pasts and that minimalism basically made everything better for them. That's where the cult-like nature creeps in (especially with the two guys who wrote their book about minimalism). This could be inspiring to some but just as likely off-putting.

Also, this documentary is in parts very US-centric. Consumerism is probably baked into Americans more than any other culture on earth and so maybe American audiences need someone holding a mirror in front of them. For the international audience this should serve as a deterrent of what not to become.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

How the US killed Osama bin Laden - warts and all

[18 May 2020]

Let's look at the controversy surrounding the "enhanced interrogation" scenes first. Bigelow claimed she wanted to include torture scenes because it really happened and not doing so would be whitewashing - a decision that I can only applaud. Some critics (who may even believe torture was a justified means to an end) apparently took it as an attack on the CIA's success just by including their dirty methods. However, Bigelow's stylistic approach (not only in these scenes but the movie as a whole) feels like a reportage. Therefore, other critics claimed she didn't condemn torture at all. Granted, we don't see any of the CIA agents show any form of objection to these methods or any regret. In fact, the only harsh words against torture came from Barrack Obama on the TV news. However, if you payed attention, it is revealed the important cluetdfinfutihnuegfuu was in the CIA's archives all along and the torture had been unnecessary for finding Osama Bin Laden after all. The audience's reaction to the torture is somewhat "primed" by the opening of the movie where you can hear the desperate emergency calls of victims on September 11th 2001. Of course, not putting the movie in the direct context of 9/11 would have been a poor directoral choice but here it is done in a slightly manipulative way. It makes the audience feel a bit more comfortable with the waterboarding etc. that was about to follow.

Other than torturing there was plenty of other "detective work". I didn't expect the movie to dumb things down but maybe it could have been a bit clearer about who's who and what's going on. Needless to say, some parts are heavily fictionalized. Especially the part where 'Maya' wrote on an office window, how many days have passed without results. Although the character played by Jessica Chestain (whose performance is flawless) is inspired by a real CIA agent, it was not the success of a single person's work. It is the one Hollywood cliché in the movie that had me roll my eyes: The over-motivated, hot-headed young maverick who solves the case against all odds and against their resistent colleagues. Paradoxically, the movie would have been more feministic by focusing less on one single woman and showing that in reality there were more women sitting in important meetings than just 'Maya'. Credit goes to the direction for the "showdown" where SEALs infiltrate Osama's fortress. It was very suspenseful to watch despite the audience already knowing the outcome.

Finally, I want to focus on the ending, which elevated the movie and you can interpret it in many ways. I didn't take Maya's tears on the plane as tears of joy. She is finally overcome by the realization that she hit her goal that she was working towards for many years. As alluded to in some scenes it has become her personal obsessions taking over her life and has become her "jihad". And now that the enemy is dead, now what? It is also interesting that the real life 'Maya' - who's identity is unkown - did actually have signs of maladjustment after Bin Laden's death. According to former CIA member there were some incidents, e.g. she sent out email replies to her colleagues, claiming she deserved more credit than the rest of her team. This makes me hold on to my interpretation. She could be seen as a personification for the United States as a whole. A decade was characterized by a war on terrorism and a revengeful hunt for Osama bin Laden. Everything you worked for was motivated by killing an enemy who is now dead, leaving oyu without a direction. Yet, most of your problems (some were created along the way) are not gone.

Ad Astra (2019)

"Apocalypse Now" meets "2001 Space Odyssey", but bad

[11 April 2020]

I like slow Sci-Fi movies in space. I like Brad Pitt. What went wrong?

Story-wise the movie is basically reminiscent of "Event Horizon". You could also put it as "Apocalypse Now" meets "2001 Space Odyssey". Tonally and visually there was also some inspiration taken from "Arrival", "Interstellar" and "Solaris". But Ad Astra is beneath all of those movies.

It is monotonous and kind of depressing, not just for the fact we learn that we are alone in the solar system. Brad Pitt's character has a hard time dealing with emotions and humans probably because he lost his astronaut dad early in his life. But it's actually not emotionally engaging. The constant narration didn't help with that either - it's "show, don't tell"!

The writing is lazy, things happen out of convenience and it doesn't really culminate to anything. The highlight was when Brad Pitt finally met his Dad and even that scene fell flat. Some of the action parts had me just rolling my eyes, e.g. like "Gravity" did. Do space movie directors even care about physics in space?

I did enjoy the space set-design though. There were also a couple of neet ideas of the near future sprinkled in: like a war in the arctic circle, or the moon basically being just as fought over for resources as earth.

It wouldn't recommend watching it, though.

Passengers (I) (2016)

Mindless movie for date-nights, solely saved by its casting choices

[11 April 2020]

This movie is going to be picked for many date movie nights and I can see it doing its job of entertaining couples very well. I attribute this mostly to Chris Pratt's and Jennifer Lawrence's on-screen chemistry and less to the script. It offers a bit of charming romcom, lots of over-the-top action and a bit of drama. Sadly, the movie didn't do more with its interesting premise: If you were stranded somewhere, would you want to have somebody with you? Even if that person would have to suffer the same fate as you? Pratt woke up Lawrence because he couldn't live alone for the rest of his live. It is both emotionally understandable and morally wrong. In terms of the movie, the consequences were predictable and the timing was anti-climatic, leading to the low-point in the story arc before the movie resolves in action-schlock.

Dogtooth (2009)

An allegory for fascism - that ended too early

[29 March 2020]

The father is a "strong leader" who holds control over his family which is restricted to their house and garden. He keeps that control alive by creating a threat on the outside which scares the children enough to never wanting to go there. They abide by their parents' word since they have been fully indoctrinated from birth and they fear punishment and are motivated by prizes. And their knowledge is limited by the (partially false) education the father gave them in order to keep them pure and always obedient. While dehumanizing his family and restricting their freedom, he is also making himself look as strong and in control as he can - a power he does not have outside of his home. So it checks a lot of boxes on what fascism is.

The movie has a slow pace and it is uncomfortably silent for the most part. However, the dialogue is sometimes painfully dry and mundane. A wasted chance of creating more of an eery atmosphere. Maybe another actor in the role of the father could possibly have had a more menacing aura, too. The resulting movie is bordering on dullness and only occasional brutal or disgusting scenes reset the viewers' shock.

A few aspects were left unanswered and I really would have liked more clarity. For example, is the mother consenting to this lifestyle? She is basically a passive background character for the most part. Is she a privileged "party member" and therefore playing along? And what was the motivation of the parents in the first place? Actually the director said he did not want to provide a backstory because the focus should not be on "How did we get here?" but rather on the effects. Ok, that is fine with me. Too bad it does not show us more of those effects in the end though.

The abrupt ending is a hallmark of Lanthimos. In this case, however, it's missing the chance to elevate the material. He showed us an allegorical representation of fascism. But what actually happens when the subjects learn the truth about their government and the outside world? What actually happens when the father (fascist leaders) lose control?

The Irishman (2019)

Scorsese - The Movie

[11 February 2020]

The Irishman is an epic mob gangster drama - Martin Scorsese's speciality. It's a genre that isn't fresh anymore, by a director that already had mastered it. The story is about a man who is a relic of a long gone era and it stars actors from a an older era. It plays with themes like reflecting, reminiscing, justification, regret... In short: it's very meta!

It's told slowly in a 70ies fashion, which I usually do enjoy. But I'll address the elephant in the room: 3.5 hours is too long! Well yes, it was released on Netflix, which allows you to pause it anytime. Yes, it's also not uncommon these days for people to binge watch a whole season of a show in one go, I know. But I will still judge it as a movie experience you sit through from beginning to end and 3.5 hours is too long!

The best part without a doubt: the acting of Pacino, Pesci and de Niro is just a delight. They are so familiar to us in this type of movie that you immediately accept their roles. Even the de-aging didn't take me out of the immersion. It never becomes boring to watch them doing the dirty mob business. But although it is very well made, it never feels like the movie delivers anything groundbreaking - at least if you are already familiar with Scorsese's oeuvre.

You could get in the edit room and cut out 20 minutes and it would hold up nonetheless. So why not just trim it then? It's almost like they were proud of how long they can make it. Around 2 hours and 15 minutes in, it kept banging on about how Jimmy (Pacino) needs to be convinced to give up his career ambitions. That part felt way too long and it was the first time I was starting to get impatient.

Also, the ending could have been a bit slicker and it didn't leave me very emotional. I think Frank's (de Niro) daughter(s), who later in life abandoned the retired gangster, should have had a bigger role in the movie for it to leave a devastating mark.

In an age where Marvel CGI blockbusters are all the rage, I'm glad that Scorsese is still around to make movies like this. A movie that feels like a story about people and not just like a theme park ride as Scorsese has put it. However, it just didn't bring much new to the genre. I'm afraid I have zero interest in ever watching it again and I think Goodfellas holds up for rewatching well. Or maybe I would rather watch Coppola's Godfather 1 & 2 or Leone's Once Upon a Time in America instead. Therefore, I can only give a rating below 8/10.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

Disjointed and terribly fast paced to distract from a lack of any logic

[23 December 2019]

If you just casually care about Star Wars: stay far, far away from this! Watch episodes 4, 5 and 6, which are classics in movie history. And then go on, live a happy life without knowing about this trilogy.

Obviously this movie had to overcome a big hurdle. It's the third in a trilogy where the first two movies wasted a lot of chances to set up themes and story arcs. Or to be more precise, a lot of potential was buried in the sand in The Last Jedi just for the sake of subverting fan theories.

As a consequence, they had to put A LOT in these 140 minutes. It is crammed with ret-conning and two movies worth of events and it does not give you any chance to soak in the universe or appreciate what's happening. If you go for a too long bathroom break you could miss out on a whole planet. After watching I wanted to go back to the late 70ies and just spend a minute with Luke staring at a sunset on Tattooine and take a breather.

*SPOILERS*

Let me just recap the first third of the movie, to show what a pure ADHD fueled nightmare it is:

Four minutes in and Kylo meets the Emperor. You know, the dead villain from the old trilogy? Followed by a highspeed, quick-cut chase in the Millenium Falcon. Then cut to Rey training with Leia in the jungle. By the way: In the last movie Luke told Rey the Force is not just about levitating rocks and now she's literally doing a Force training course workout? Don't think! Then for the first time we see our main trio Poe, Rey and Finn all three having a conversation - it's just shouting. Then the Rebels confirm: Palpatine is alive! And there will be attacks somewhere soon? Wait, what is happening? Ok, so Luke was apparently tracking down the Emperor's location. And now they have to find him. Got it. Wait, was that Rose? Did Finn just pet her on the shoulder? Umm, is that a holi festival now? There's Lando! Explosion! Quick sand! An underground dungeon? Rey's using the force healing a giant snake!?

They never stay on a scene long enough for it to get interesting. Actually you could argue, this movie has almost no scenes. It's set pieces. Maybe they did this so they audience can't possibly think about the logic behind it all.

Even Last Jedi (as stupid as some of the decisions were) felt like a normally paced movie in comparison, it's no fun to be constantly bombarded like this. Luckily, the movie slows down a bit for the second half. The middle of the movie actually was the most enjoyable part for me.

Although I could smell Kylo's redemption two movies ago, Adam Driver was the best thing about this whole trilogy because he is an amazing actor and had an interesting character to portray. And lastly comes a paint by numbers showdown. Fighter battles, light saber duels, and of course, there is a super weapon on every Star Destroyer cause JJ Abrams loves those.

Everything about Palpatine was cringy. Whereas it was unclear whether Luke would strike down his own father in Episode 6 or join the dark side, it is obvious that the super-evil Emperor has nothing to offer to Rey. Instead he sucks the force out of Rey and Kylo, which reminded me of the Harry Potter franchise. Or Batman v Superman.

The ending was overly sentimental. It would make sense as a farewell after 9 Episodes if we would actually have cared about the last three movies. And then there was the lesbian kiss in the background which Disney wants to call progressive.

I don't give 1/10 or 2/10 to movies that have some visible production quality to them. But I can't go much higher than this. Possibly some hardcore Star Wars fanboys will defend it to the death (there's plenty of fan service).

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

A wasted opportunity?

[14 December 2019]

Often overlooked since the movie had Lazenby in it, who had never acted before and had to follow icon Sean Connery. Still, many considered this movie a hidden gem, one of the best written Bond flicks. I have to scratch my head at that statement. Maybe I have too high expectations for a movie of 1969? Then again, I've seen plenty of film noir from that era that had a better plot. But I suppose Bond movies are just supposed to be fun rides.

Now there were plenty of fun setpieces: Bond infiltrating a bank, escaping on a cable car, a ski chase, a bobsleigh chase. There was plenty that was fun to watch, and I didn't mind Lazenby as Bond.

The big deal is that this is the only time 007 gets married in the franchise and he immediately loses his wife on his wedding day. Sounds great in theory but the execution was not dramatic nor climactic. And you can't blame it on the actors.

First third of the film, Bonds soon-to-be wife is actually totally dismissive of him, despite him saving her a couple of times. But eventually she falls in love with him after we get a minute long romantic montage with them living a live in paradise. Then Bond goes off to work abroad and Tracy isn't seen again until she conveniently appears to help 007 escape in her car. You call that great writing?

To get this out of the way, I didn't watch the movies leading up to this, and I had to realize it is not a "reboot" after the Connery movies. So it was a bit confusing that the beginning didn't establish what mission Bond was on, since Blofeld as a villain was already known from earlier Bond films. Ok, that's on me.

I think it was a wasted opportunity to not raise the stakes with Blofeld's evil plan, which was to send hypnotized women out in all parts of the world who could at any time receive his commands. He then blackmailed the UN to give him amnesty for all of his former crimes or else he would use those women to spread a virus. What a cool idea, you could do all sorts of interesting things with that. Imagine Bond having to find all of them while the clock is ticking. Or maybe even his loved one ends is being used as a virus host by Blofeld? But they didn't do anything clever like that, instead the good guys flew in with helicopters to blow up Blofeld's headquaters.

BlacKkKlansman (2018)

Nothing wrong with the message, a lot wrong with the movie

[5 December 2019]

Racism is wrong, it was wrong in the 70ies and still is wrong today. Sadly, the movie doesn't handle this matter in a masterful way. And the Academy was apparently willing to look over its issues and wasted potential.

First of all, it is a blaxploitation movie at heart and only its premise of a black cop infiltrating the KKK is factual. The rest is heavily fictionalized for its claim to be "based on true events". This could be justified if it would have elevated the material but I don't think that is the case.

Driver's acting was - as usual - very natural and likeable but he was not given space to shine to actually justify his Support Oscar nomination. There is one scene where he questions his own identity and the meaning of his Jewish heritage after he spent a long time as an undercover cop surrounded by antisemite Klan members. However, it is not quite tied in with the racism aspect and never concluded either.

Laura Harrier as black student leader Patrice Dumas was very one note and she was essentially reduced to love interest and assassination target.

A highlight were the phone conversations between John David Washington as black Detective Ron Stallworth and Topher Grace as David Duke, who surprisingly was portrayed very mannered. In contrast, most of the other characters felt like comical stereotypes. I assume it should create comedy how dumb KKK people are. Also, what was the point of them finding out that something's going on if it doesn't really create tension? In fact, pacing of the whole movie didn't create a lot of suspense.

The editing is slightly disjointed but okay, the soundtrack main theme is pretty good but repeats itself too often.

Then there is the issue that the movie could easily have ended 15 minutes earlier. The ending fails to naturally wrap up the story and instead they tacked on news footage of the 2017 Virginia events. The movie leaves you with a gut punch, which is fine, but there must have been a classier way to link that era to our times. Spike Lee assumed the audiences are a bunch of 5 year olds who need to be hit over the head with the political message.

The Mandalorian: Chapter 1: The Mandalorian (2019) Season 1, Episode 1

Lose the helmet!

[17 November 2019]

It looks like the Star Wars universe, like the underbelly out of the original trilogy (after Episode 6 to be precise). The sparing use of CGI in combination with practical effects can only be applauded. Gone are the sterile days of the Star Wars Prequels with shooting clueless actors in complete green-screen sets.

Its tone is a bit colder, not as hopeful and adventurous, more in line with Rogue One. There is a bit of humor sprinkled in, but thank God, they didn't go full goofy like they did with Jar Jar Binks. Also, no slapstick C3PO.

So far, there is no more personality to our hero "Mando", the Mandalorian, than to Boba Fett. Just a cool looking gunslinger in armor. I hope he loses the helmet eventually because not getting facial expressions from our main character is going to be a massive problem. Imagine the original Star Wars trilogy with Luke, Han and Leia wearing masks all time! All the heart of the movies would be sucked away at once. Acting solely with your armor covered body will be a challenge.

All they did is hint at what could be an interesting backstory for the Mandalorian. I hope they'll go there in a clever way. Otherwise this is is just going to be a bunch of laser blasts every episode. And not even in a spaghetti western tradition where the action thrives by a lot of build-up and face-to-face tension. However, there seems not to be much time for that in a 30 minute episode.

Sure, a pilot episode has a hard task establishing characters and tone. Therefore it would have made sense to start off with a double pilot episode. I'll give it a chance for one or two more episodes. But only because it managed to not disappoint my nostalgic heart.

Shin Godzilla (2016)

55% brilliant satire, 30% boring, 15% shlock

[2 November 2019]

The focus of the movie is definitely not the monster itself, although we get a bit of background story, and enough action spectacle and destruction. What we watch for the most part, is the politics and the disaster management caused by Godzilla. And all of it is satirized brilliantly and conveyed with lots of quick, hectic cuts. From ridiculous red tape and long chains of commands, which make quick decisions impossible, to politicians being concerned more with their future career than this ominous threat. From geopolitical power play, nuclear weapons, to Japanese and American relations. The themes of the movies are deliciously refreshing for its genre!

However, entertaining as this may be for a good while, the movie comes to a point where you want it to finally be over. For me that was around 70 minutes into its runtime. At that point I was a bit exhausted from watching people in offices shouting commands. The ending turns into full shlock with all combined forces working together in order to deactivate Godzilla. The CGI doesn't look great but fine enough in the context of the movie. Sadly, it is only once used to create a dark and looming atmosphere in the scene with Godzilla attacking Tokyo at night. Therefore, the audience is never really forced to the edge of the seat out of tension. At the end, it was surprisingly easy to freeze Godzilla after all. I was kinda hoping he/she/it would suddenly come back to live - and roll credits!

Pure Pwnage (2016)

As a fan, I enjoyed a great deal of the movie

[12 August 2019]

* SPOILERS for the Pure Pwnage movie and possibly the original Pure Pwnage web series*

Especially the first half hour strongly delivers on nostalgia. It captured the feel of the web series (especially the later, more scripted episodes). Camera work, editing style and the music helped keeping it's mockumentary rooted atmosphere. All the beloved characters are back (Kyle's increased presence fitted very well). The initial turn on Jeremy's drugged character kept me engaged. There were so much funny little moments and scenes (Kyle's director fight, classic gaming montages). I loved those little details you could miss in the blink of an eye (Jeremy running around in his dream with a North Korean flag, or Jarett playing the "new guy", or Tagi's text message to Jeremy's Xobo device). Also there were very interesting takes on issues like how medication changes one's personality, on materialism (Jeremy's ridiculous happiness graph), a parody on technology cults (Xobo's ad and their dumb slogan "We make the future the past"), on jobs, friend zones, aging etc. The whole premise of Jeremy's and Doug's legally gay marriage was also a clever contrast to years of "ghey" insults in the gaming culture. Very well played!

I have some negative thoughts though: I wish we would have gotten a few answers to what happened after web season 2 ended. It was lovely to see Tagi, Dave and Kris (yes, she had a cameo) - but it raised more questions than giving answers. My next issue is, that some of the new characters didn't feel that important, because they're "just" Jeremy's team monkeys. (But they self-ironically addressed this at the after-credits scene.) Also some arcs were very loose (Doug's motivations?) and Tagi & Jeremy getting back together. And lastly, I do know nothing about League of Legends and that's probably the reason that the last half hour was not that interesting to me. But I applaud that Pure Pwnage has always addressed what's going on in gaming culture.

I can't tell how entertaining this movie is to anyone who has not been following Pure Pwnage though the years. However, as a fan from back in the day, I enjoyed a great deal of it. It is an impressive accomplishment for a crowd funded debut movie.

Fabian (1980)

I can only recommend this movie to you if you read the book

[3 July 2019]

The book by Erich Kästner, which this is based on, was a contemporary report about the life in Berlin between the two World Wars. The author demonstrated a cynical sense of what was to come: political doom. It is a pessimistic look on modern city life with crippled veterans in the streets, nazis fighting with communists, unemployment, a struggling government, a manipulative press and yet a wild nightlife with plenty of amusement in brothels.

Granted, the movie displays a great deal of these themes. Sadly, it fails to get the tone right. It felt like it aspired to be a romantic comedy at times. When the protagonist goes about his day cheerful whistle music kicks in to get us to the next scene. It convinces a carelessness within Fabian about his decaying environment which is not the point at all. The most important detail about the book was the protagonist's ironic comments about the lack of morality and the movie features little of this.

I can only recommend this movie to people who read the source material. It does have memorable scenes. But in total, I'll bet you'll have very different emotions.

Melancholia (2011)

Masterpiece if executed better

[27 June 2019]

The first half is focused on Justine's wedding party. She suffers from depression, which seems to hit her periodically. There's great dialogue when her brother-in-law (who paid for everything) tells her how expensive everything was and that she better be goddamn happy today. This really shows how little healthy people understand mental illness. Justine can't even sit down with either of her parents in private to talk about her emotional state. Even her husband seems to fail on that front. All the guests seem to be the most snobbish, superficial, bland people. The only one who does not seem like a hollow person in this society, is her sister Claire, who actually cares for Justine's well-being. She probably secretly hoped this magical day would heal her sister. Justine clearly tries to pull herself together but has to escape from the party a few times to calm herself down.

After also skipping the "consummation" during what should have been their wedding night, she instantly cheats on her husband with another man (she seems to also be hit by aggressive phases). It dawns on the groom that this is probably not going to work out and he breaks up with her even before dawn. She asks him "What did you expect?", which goes to show he does not understand or did underestimate her illness.

In the second part, Claire, the calmer yet slightly timid sister of the two, takes care of Justine after she seems to have had a breakdown some time after the wedding. While this is going on, the planet Melancholia is getting closer to Earth. Scientists made varying predictions with two scenarios: Everything's gonna be fine or a swing-by that changes the course and leads to an apocalyptic collision. Don't think too much about it because this is not how gravity works.

Claire mostly trusted her husband's opinion, however, that Melancholia is going to miss earth. After her husband realizes he was wrong and kills himself out of panic, she also starts to break. She is afraid for her son, for all of their lives, she feels the inevitable doom upon them and is helpless. This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the perfect depiction of what depression must feel like, the planet Melancholia is a great metaphor. This is what Justine feels in her darkest hours but nobody can see or understand it because there's not an apocalyptic threat hanging over everyone. Justine, however, seems to be resigned, even relieved in these final hours. To her it means her suffering will come to an end.

Visually this movie is atrocious and I have to subtract stars for that. All scenes (except a few still shots with the planet Melancholia) were filmed with shaky cam which makes every movie a pain to watch. Also, the editor could have trimmed a lot from the first half. Furthermore, I'm not sure whether it was clever to use the collision with earth as a framing device at the beginning (and thus spoiling what could have become tension?) Another flaw is that Justine apparently can predict things. She proves to Claire she knows things and that they will all die. Was she depressed because of this "ability" all along? This gave the movie an unnecessary mystical touch.

Escape from New York (1981)

Great premise, but why does the movie not do more with it?

[12 June 2019]

It sounds kinda silly but is actually a fun premise for an action flick: Manhatten Island has become a high security prison, there is no way out and only police can get in. The president has been kidnapped by inmates and someone has to get him out of there. And the best guy for the job is Snake, a criminal himself. Our (anti-)hero does not have much to offer except a briefly mentioned badass backstory and an eye patch. However, Snake is played by Kurt Russell: wooden though likable enough to get away with. I was fine with it, he's just the cool action guy - don't ask questions.

You feel like you're in for the ride when you see the atmospheric camera work and the mysterious set design - almost reminiscent of Carpenter's horror movies. Apparently the budget was very tight and yet the looks of the movie are great. Carpenter's interesting soundtrack adds to that atmosphere brilliantly.

But then the problems start. There is a time element to Snake's mission and yet he doesn't seem to be in a rush at all. The plot is moving forward by coincidence and this world all of a sudden seems pretty small. There are a few important people (and everybody seems to know Snake) and they just appear. There are a few action scenes, a car chase but it all is forgettable. Also, the movie doesn't seem to build towards a real climax. In the end, it seemed pretty easy to rescue the president.

I know it seen as a cult classic by many and I can appreciate a lot of it. But it would be unfair to some of other Carpenter movies to rate this anything higher than 5 stars.

Rush (I) (2013)

Not just a basic racing movie

[10 June 2019]

It is more than just a basic racing movie - I'll give that much credit.

People praise this movie for being a character study. I don't know about that... It got the main characters right - but only individually. Let's examine:

Niki Lauda is a fascinating figure: methodical and no-nonsense. Brühl spent a lot of time with him and nailed his younger character. According to an interview the actor immediately recognized the importance of learning the Austro-English accent to get his mannerisms right (a fact even Ron Howard did not get). With the incredible make-up he really turned into Lauda.

In contrast to Lauda, Hunt really was a pop idol of his time who is said to have slept with 5000 women in his lifetime, which is the impression you get from the very start of the movie. I'm not sure if Hemsworth did really portray him well, though. Maybe a bit too overacted for a real person. Brühl, for me, clearly steals the show.

The way the movie shifts its focus between Hunt and Lauda feels like an "either/or" deal. There are actually surprisingly few scenes where they interact directly. This is where the movie fails in my opinion.

According to an interview with Lauda, the movie got 80% right. So what did it get wrong? Sure, on the track they were rivals but they had a lot of respect for each other despite their different attitudes. However, the movie makes it look like they hated each other (up until the last scene where they exchange cheesy Hollywood dialogue). Obviously you have to call your opponent an a**hole all the time, otherwise how should mainstream audiences know they are rivals?! The scenes with both together fell flat for me - what a missed opportunity to elevate the movie!

The music is by Hans Zimmer - effective but sometimes I thought to myself this sounds more like a war movie soundtrack. The editing adds to the fast race feel, but sometimes they looks slightly off. Obviously no real footage of Formular 1 looks like that and I wish they had toned it down a bit.

There are obviously a lot of real-life highlights in the movie: Lauda's famous crash of 1976 and his manic "recovery" are on the very top. However, the high point of that season - the Grand Prix of Japan - felt very rushed without realla showing the motivations of Lauda's quit.

Well, looks like I will always have mixed feelings about Ron Howard's Hollywood-washed movies.

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

Not without flaws but giving audiences a good time

[29 March 2019]

People like this movie about Freddie Mercury because they like Freddie Mercury. And it is not a terrible movie. That should be enough to explain its popularity with the masses.

We can all agree that Freddie was incredibly talented. And that's why he deserves that we look critically at the flaws of a movie depicting his life.

It took a lot of liberties with the timeline. The songs' vocals were altered, too, for some reason. The editing and cinematography felt flat most of the time. Only the writing session of "We will rock you" and the Life Aid concert stood out as memorable scenes.

In fact framing the movie around that event was a very clever decision. However, it went on for too long, I would rather have watched a YouTube clip of the original performance during that time.

A positive aspect are the performances, most notably Malek's. It's pretty spot-on as far as I can judge. But the script they had to work with was not as ambitious as it should have been. Another thing to note: The depiction of the gay scene and AIDS felt a bit dubious to me.

Nonetheless, you leave the theater with a good feeling after the end credit scenes.

Stalker (1979)

Forget the label "Sci-Fi" - it will adjust your expectations and improve your experience

[4 April 2018]

The most common complaints about this movie is that is too long, too slow, too strange. I have to admit I had similar feelings initially.

Is it too slow? The shots in this movie are held painfully long featuring very little and slow camera movement. I once read the average shot duration is a couple of minutes. It's mesmerizing and yet patience provoking at the same time, especially if you are used to modern movies.

Is it too strange? Much like journey the three men undertake through the Zone, this movie experience is also a journey itself. A journey that is tense and yet at the same time it makes you impatient to find out what will await you at the end. What is this strange Zone? What is this room that grants wishes? Does it work? These are questions the two characters Professor and Writer must have going though their heads. In that it is the most effective movie to project the character's feelings upon the audience -- just by its style alone.

Is it too long? Are you watching this because you reserved 2.5 hours spare time for entertainment or are you willing to go on a 2.5 hours journey? Are you looking for something or are you willing to accept anything that is about to come? When you've seen the film you will probably recognize that these are the very same motives in the movie.

It is a thought provoking film with allegorical elements, the label "Sci-Fi" might technically fit -- although Sci-Fi elements of the source material are downplayed as I understand it. But I would recommend to forget about all expectations you might have about this genre. I kept waiting for things to "kick off", which clouded my mind. I got something entirely different instead. And it is something that stands for revisiting.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

The safe-bet version of a biopic

[22 March 2018]

John Nash's story is without a doubt interesting and certainly not easy to translate into a movie format. But that cannot be an excuse. We get a movie that is a bit of a heartbreaking drama, a bit of a spy action flick and a bit of a biographical picture (with many fictionalized parts). But it does nothing really exceptionally well. What it does well is to dumb everything down for a broad audience and to make it as little offending as possible.

*SPOILERS*

First, it would have been nice to see what makes John Nash actually a genius. We see him being awkward and weird, highly intelligent and constantly scribbling math on some surfaces. To the average movie audience it's clear: This man must be some sort of genius! Come on, don't treat your audience like that, Ron Howard! If you really must dumb it down, include maybe at least a reference to why he actually won the Nobel price and why his work was important. Well, at least we got the scene with the women in the bar.

Secondly, many details of Nash's life are just wrong or fictionalized, which does not have to be a bad thing per se. For example, in "Amadeus" the writer's allowed themselves a lot of freedom with Mozart's life in order to tell a greater, romanticised story about art. But here a story that was not always very "clean" in reality is told in a fashion for maximum Oscars chances. It wants to be a story full of heart (and even sacrifices intelligence for that), but if you take a closer look, it is a calculated movie. Anything that could be offensive is left out. Just google Nash's real biography if you don't believe me.

And this sugarcoating includes the depiction of schizophrenia. I don't have much insight into this mental illness but I'm sure it doesn't work in the way the movie shows us. Nash sees the same three imaginary people over and over again until we as an audience learn they are not real. Or are they? Initially, this state of confusion gave the movie interesting touch of mystery, that I actually enjoyed. I had no idea if this movie would stick to the sort-of-biopic-format or turn into an Alfred Hitchcock thriller.

It's really hard to find anything else to compliment. The cinematography looks kind of flat? And I can't even say I'm a fan of Connelly's slightly expressionless acting. Ironically, she won an Oscar instead of Crowe, who actually was quite convincing.

The Shape of Water (2017)

Amélie and the fishy Beast: very fishy

[6 March 2018]

*SPOILERS* The movie takes 20 minutes of introducing us to the main character and her life. The beginning provides a few laughs, sets the tone, but it's way too stretched out and contains useless details that will never pay off later. Maybe they realized that they bored the audience, so they jump right into the fish creature romance.

There's a disgusting and possibly dangerous alien fish creature chained in a laboratory and the main character starts immediately feeding it and flirting with it! I get it, it's perceived as different from the norm, which is a symbol for the minorities that are featured in the movie (gay, mute, black) and all of them work together in the end. But it looks like a monster that could easily be featured in a horror movie and the script skipped any rational initial caution, followed by a slow build up of sympathy and intimacy. Instead, the movie wanted me to be invested and accepting from the beginning and it didn't work for me one bit. Famously, there is the scene where the lady is screwing with the fish, which is just... wrong.

The bad guys are so stereotypical bad, it's really cheesy. Again, the symbolism is clear: it's a commentary on the culture of the 1960ies (and possibly still today). But can you really judge people of a former decade with today's morals? Anyway, the movie does not do anything intellectually challenging with this. Instead, the third act ended completely predictable with a showdown that reminded me a lot of E.T.

The movie is incredibly well shot and the acting is mostly solid ( a bit over the top on the villains' part) but it does not live up to it's full potential. Of course this won the best picture votes from the older Academy members, because it briefly shows a couple of old movie scenes and it's nostalgic for the late 1950ies / early 60ies.