IkkegoeMikke's My Opinion as a Movie-Freak
 

As suggested I'll start a single thread where I'll post my reviews of movies I've seen. Makes it a bit easier for me and I won't be flooding the forum with new threads :)
I hope to get some interaction plus advice .... Enjoy reading it !

http://stuffpoint.com/going-to-cinem...-to-cinema.jpg

Late Phases
2014
Adrian Garcia Bogliano

Exquisite acting, lousy werewolf ...

"So we suggest during the day you don't walk by the perimeter of the woods if you're alone. And at night, please, stay in your house, keep the doors closed and the windows closed until we sort this out. Okay? Starting now."


It looks as if there's a revival of the werewolf genre. Granted, it's nothing special what's being produced in this area. "Night Wolf" was abominably bad. "Wolves" was a failed attempt to launch a commercial teen product. And "Wer" was an original attempt to revitalize the genre. The first two monstrosities excelled in terrible renditions, ridiculous grime and unabashedly exploiting this sub-genre with the ultimate goal to initiate a commercial and profitable franchise. "Wer" was an original concept in which the werewolf type didn't answer to the clichéd representations as in older movies. "Late Phases" is situated somewhere in between. On the one hand it's successful when it comes to the acting and the approach. But on the other hand it's a complete failure when it's about the appearance of a werewolf and also the total lack of tension. And that's exactly what I'm always looking forward to, when watching a werewolf movie.

Let me start of with the positive part of this would-be horror: the acting performance. Indeed singular because the whole film is dominated by Nick Damici as Ambrose McKinley, a blind Vietnam vet full of resentment and hatred against society. It's not explicitly said like that in this film, but the way he deals with people and hearing his biting, sarcastic tone says a lot. He has nothing good to say about his own son either. The only living beings he can deal with very well is his guide dog Shadow and a female neighbor whom he met when he moved into his little house at Crescent Bay, the last stop for the elderly. Now believe it or not, exactly these two fortunate are torn to pieces the first night that he's there. According to the local police they get such reports from Crescent Bay on a regular base (and what's even more weird it's once a month) and they assume these are wild dogs or something in that nature that attack the defenseless elderly. So, close doors and windows, stay inside and you definitely shouldn't go wandering in the dark. That's their advice. Our war veteran, who's obviously clever enough, immediately draws the correct conclusion and knows that it's obviously something else than some petty predators.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VS7rfPYT9P...s-review-2.jpg

Nick Damici is amazing in his role as the gruff and grumpy blind antisocial veteran. And that's where the praising of this movie stops. The rest of the cast fails in every area. Most of them are just fake, one-dimensional characters. From the dressed up tea-party ladies who need to poke their noses into everything all the time to the son Will (Ethan Embry) and his wife who exhibit utter outrage about the rhetorical gift of Ambrose. Even the arrogant guard and tactless police officer aren't missing. The only one who gave some splendid counteraction towards Ambrose was the officiating Father Roger (Tom Noonan) who always listens to the tirades of Ambrose with an amused smile.

The fact that the main topic of the story (a werewolf) is revealed in a very early stage in the film, doesn't contribute to the building up of a certain tension. From there on it's just a guessing game of who's the person in the community who suffers from terrible hair growth when there's a full moon. And that leads us to the phenomenon of the werewolf. What a carnival show this was. A Halloween costume party is nothing compared to it. I liked the costumes from the Muppet Show a lot better. Especially when I saw these striking tufts on the ears, I totally got the giggles. And then a golden tip for future directors who try to produce a werewolf movie. If you can't even succeed in creating a transformation scene as terrific as in "An American Werewolf in London" (for me THE example of an excellent werewolf film), please let go of the idea and don't consider even on starting with it. Because that scene in "Late Phases" was terribly amateurish. Even the camera angle from above was recycled. Only there was nothing more to see than a bunch of hairs. Even the original scene with the steel lung couldn't make up for it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NQz1s-ZqRO...s-2014-002.jpg

Ultimately, it was (thanks to Damici's masterful performance) still an enjoyable movie (even though I found the discovery he made at the beginning a bit exaggerated and I had to chuckle a moment about the fact that despite his blindness, he still could aim miraculously well). There were also too many irritating ridiculous glitches (Here's another one. His son is worried about the amount of money his father is carrying around, but that one's intestines are scattered around a whole house and dear father has an arsenal of heavy guns in his house, turns out to be quite normal). Even the symbolic meaning of Will's action in the end, remains a mystery to me. I hope to see a more convincing werewolf next time, with such an appearance that I don't have the feeling that I'm observing a masked ball.

Seventh Son
2014
Sergey Bodrov

˝You've spells, boy. What kind?
Sometimes I...I see things. Things that haven't happened yet.
Could be useful. Not the passing out part of course, but the visions.˝


Take the cartoon "The Sword in the Stone", add in a few ingredients of "Willow" and use a diminutive small portion of "The Lord of the Rings" and you'll get "Seventh Son" as a result. The umpteenth adaptation of a series of youth books and again a contribution to the fantasy genre. Now, I'm a huge fan of fantasy. Start a movie in which knights, magicians, dragons, trolls, witches, gnomes and other mythological creatures are introduced and I will be completely absorbed in this fairytale world. Unfortunately, this film is a huge mishmash of multiple facets of previously released movies (which at first sight shouldn't be a problem) .The biggest problem is the storyline. What an incomprehensible tangle this is. Had the seventh son of the seventh son seen this in his visions , he would leave without notice to an unknown destination and never be in touch again.


It's certainly not the overly present CGI which is disappointing, although it doesn't look smooth all the time. It's mainly the interpretations that started to annoy, with frontrunner Jeff Bridges as Master Gregory. This mumbling pub visiting magician, better known as a Spook, is doing his utmost to come across as an unpleasant person. It seems like Bridges just copied his character from ˝R.I.P.D.˝. A mix between Catweazle and Gandalf but with a huge toothless lower jaw which ensures you can only hear an unintelligible stream of mumbled words coming from under his D'artagnan-like mustache. Besides a few witty and sarcastic quotes, you shouldn't expect any serious dialogues of this character. Ben Barnes interprets the lucky apprentice Tom Ward. A person without charisma who acts and looks quite dull and colorless. The only thing you can admire him for, is the fact that he worked his way up to savior of the world in a record time (the previous unfortunate was already 10 years an apprentice. He had to master it in 3 days. Respect!), because mankind is about to meet again with a gang of villains led by Mother Malkin. Julianne Moore attempts to depict Mother Malkin as a demonic witch who can transform effortlessly into an invincible flying dragon. However, it remains an attempt because she doesn't really look that frightening. As a person she looks to ordinary and her cleavage impressed me more at times than her acting performance. The fact that Bridges and Moore acted together in ˝The Big Lebowski˝ as The Dude and daughter of Jeffrey Lebowski, probably made for a lovely reunion.


But the biggest problem in ˝Seventh Son˝ was undoubtedly the total absence of any explanation. The seventh son of a seventh son has access to magical powers. I guess we have to take that for granted ? Gregory knew to outwit Mother Malkin one way or another in the past and saw a chance to lock her in a cave somewhere in a high mountain. He used a huge iron gate to close it completely. Apparently at that time Mother Malkin wasn't powerful enough to beat Master Gregory. That's quite obvious to me, since he was able to carry that huge fence together with her up the mountain. In the wake of Mother Malkin there was also an army of invincible figures. Probably they were at that moment astray I guess. And the term invincible is also something you should take with a grain of salt. They were eliminated without too much trouble. The multi-armed Shiva-like swordsman looks dangerously but disappears out of the picture in a ridiculous way. The course of the entire history is nowhere deepened and logical explanations remain off. Eventually you don't bother about the whole story anymore and continue to watch in a haze of total indifference with this recurring thought ˝Oh well, I guess it ought to be like this and it probably will be obvious to the savvy viewers. I'm obvious not part of that group.˝


The CGI looks stunning but occasionally it simply sucks. The dialogues are quite comical at times, but mostly they feel contrived and uninspired. The whole is extremely predictable and some developments are downright ridiculous. That the half-witch Alice (Alicia Vikander) seduces Tom with a single glance. Now that's what I call magic. Ingenious opening sentences and flirting techniques aren't necessary those days I guess. The release of this film was delayed by one year. That alone you can interpret as a bad omen. It's pretty unlikely that they are going to make a motion picture of the subsequent books. Well, I'm not eagerly looking forward to that.

American Heist
2014
Sarik Andreasyan

“It was always me and you against the world.”


Are you expecting a good movie after seeing who's playing the main roles, then I'll warn you already now : This is a woefully bad movie. Adrien Brody, Oscar winner for his brilliant performance in "The Pianist", and Christensen, who's undeniably a virtuoso in handling a lightsaber but exhibits a présence that can be surpassed without a problem by Chewbacca, aren't a guarantee for an enjoyable film. The movie poster on its own is an indication that it could be a faded B-movie. And despite the tattoos of those two guys and the use of a vocabulary after which an average rascal would turn pale, they nevertheless still look like two wimps.


The day Frankie (Adrien Boyd) gets released from prison, he returns to his brother James (Hayden Christensen), who now leads an ordinary life and works as a car mechanic. James and Frankie both have an extremely troubling past. Frankie just served 10 years of imprisonment. James tries to pick up the thread. He's getting closer to Emily (Jordana Brewster) and dreams of owning a garage. Frankie wants to persuade his younger brother to start a business involving real estates. Afterwards James comes to the conclusion that again he's involved in a suspicious affair where robbing a bank is the objective.


I'll briefly numerate the negative points of this pathetic end result. First of all the performances. As I mentioned earlier, the two protagonists aren't convincing. Only the moment Brody describes the miserable conditions in prison and defines a reasonable graphic image about the contacts he had with the other inmates (whereby a tube of toothpaste was a necessary tool in those circumstances), you saw briefly a glimpse of the capacities Brody possesses as an actor. Only this scene was a bit messed up by Christensen who doesn't exactly know how to react to this confession, and therefor just looks a little dazed. Incidentally, he uses that look constantly throughout the whole movie : that dazed look where it seems as if he could burst out into tears any moment. And even if the two tough looking brothers use expressions like "f*ck", "****", "Motherf*cker" and "Bro" in their conversations, they still are and remain two dorks.


Also the two would-be business partners Ray (Tory Kittles) and Sugar (Akon who's also a known hip-hop and R & B star) are ridiculous persons. They may have the attitude and looks that would classify them immediately as riff-raff. But when Ray starts to quote statements of Thomas Jefferson about how dangerous banks are (they are even more dangerous than the army) and that they're going to start a revolution, they turn into two clownish wannabe gangsters. Brad Pitt's rant at the end of "Killing Them Softly" was acceptable. That was clearly a socially critical message. And Dominic Purcell in "Assault on Wall Street" having a go at complete Wall Street, after losing everything that was dear to him, is also understandable. But Ray suddenly striking off a few political quotes is totally implausible. But then again, it fits here.


And then the story itself. This is put together so ridiculous and painfully bad, you need a painkiller afterwards because of your painful neck you got after shaking your head repeatedly. I still can't understand how on earth James could believe the real estate story Frankie told him. Even though there's an intense family bond, he'd better struck him with a crankshaft that was lying somewhere in the house. At least I would have done that. Especially if he's the main cause why James has to endure a bleak and difficult existence now. No, he still teams up with his brother and ends up in deep trouble again. The bank robbery was so amateurish and illogical. The intervention of the police was feeble-minded, to say the least. They are handling the bank robbery and seem to have it under control, but the exit at the side of the building, they've overlooked. Then a gunfight starts and you are wondering if there's even anybody who has any practical experience in handling a firearm. The final denouement is even more ridiculous.


If it was a low-budget film, I would forgive them. But if you look at the budget they've spent making this trifle, then you really wonder what it was used for. The wages of the two protagonists? The high-tech camera that was attached to an actor's chest to get a close-up of his face? Or was it an expensive soundtrack made by Akon ? God knows. Yet one last advice. You want to watch an entertaining movie about a bank robbery ? I suggest you watch "The Bank Job".

The Atticus Institute
2015
Chris Sparling

“We don't control this, it's not just us who will be at risk.
And if you do control it, then who will be at risk?”


You like to watch documentaries about the supernatural, alien sightings or other unexplained phenomena on "National Geographic", then you should see "The Atticus institute" since this is a documentary-style film about a scientific study in an institute led by Dr. Henry West. The research is focused on paranormal activities such as ESP and psychokinesis (using the power of the mind to cause the movement of matter at a distance). The film is described as a mockumentary found footage horror. It's certainly not based on true facts, but I wouldn't look at it as a parody or satire, because even though it looks like a documentary, it's reasonably successful. Fortunately, the found footage was reduced to the minimum, and the whole movie is a collage of interviews, eyewitness reports and video recordings (both fixed cameras that capture the experiment and in a limited extent some home recording).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u_EsFEdzHg...nstitute-3.jpg

You can compare it a bit with "The Quiet Ones". Only the latter is not really a documentary that's made of videotaping, but just an ordinary horror film. Both films are set in the 70's which can be clearly seen in the decoration and the overall appearance. Especially the VHS look is typical for that period. But both films excel especially in the total absence of tension or frightening scenes. Or it should be you are easily scared and shake like a leaf after witnessing a curving card, a tray opening suddenly or a chair sliding away by itself. Anyway, it looks less creepy than implied by the previous testimonies which they always show.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i29e76sL59...e-img_1488.jpg

The eventual story isn't that original. Today you're overwhelmed with horror films with possession as a central theme. The starting point is an institution in Pennsylvania where Dr. West (William Mapother) and his team of researchers test certain persons to investigate and capture psychokinetic activity. Unfortunately they also get fraudsters between the study objects until Judith Winstead shows up (Rya Kihlstedt). At first sight it seems like an ordinary woman who probably needs some psychological counseling, but gradually they come to the conclusion that she has inexplicable powers. When the official authorities are called for help after they've noticed that the phenomenal forces aren't controllable, those authorities see an opportunity to use this to their advantage and they try to isolate the supernatural power that resides in Judith.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rX5gZCYv5Y.../hqdefault.jpg

In addition to the total lack of tension, there's also the fact that the surprise effect is totally negated by the testimonies. One can already predict which direction it's going and what the outcome will be. Even the warning to the filmmakers and those who watch this film is a little bland. Isn't this already been used somewhere else ? Saying that by watching a video or movie, this will invite evil ? The moments we witness the demonic events, are quite sparse. But those sporadic moments are still thrilling in a certain way. I'm not really a fan of this type movies (I mean the documentary part) and yet I was fascinated by it. There wasn't a single moment that I felt the urge to turn off the film. Rya Kihlstedt doesn't look as if she is possessed and eventually she suffers more because of the human intervention than by the demonic force that has her in its grip. Don't expect a woman who's spitting green slime, swearing, screaming,spouting profane language all the time and staring with a devilish glance. But I thought that Kihlstedt was convincing enough and acted with the right look and feel : that of a desperate woman who's physically and psychologically tormented. The only weak point and still farfetched item was the final plan of the US government. But to know what their intentions were, you have go and see the film for yourself. Although this topic is widely used, Chris Sparling manages nevertheless to turn it into an original movie.

The Theory of Everything
2014
James Marsh

Jane : What are you ?
Stephen : I’m a cosmologist
Jane : What’s that ?
Stephen : It’s a kind of religion for intelligent atheists.


I must admit that I've seen this film a while ago. Probably the fact that Eddie Redmayne was nominated for an Oscar, prompted me to see if he was a worthy contender for the coveted golden statuette. And the only thing I can say is that he totally deserved to win with his magnificent performance. I love to watch a biographical movie now and then. The only drawback is that I'm always a little bit disappointed about the subject covered in such a biopic and that the emphasis lies on something I wasn't looking for. In "jOBS" I missed the philosophy this visionary had about the Apple phenomenon and the development of the applied interface (which is currently perfectly normal for everybody). The clash between Jobs and Gates was cited as a fait divers, whereas that interested me. Also in "The Theory of Everything" the focus was on other facets of Hawking's life. What applies to both these films is the fact that the protagonists physically look an awful lot like the corresponding character. It's creepy to see how they both manage not only to capture the emotional part, but also to match the characteristics and physical traits of these famous people. "The Imitation Game" is obviously also a biopic which, however, had a more adventurous twist rather than being a purely biographical sketch.


You must admit that the performance of Eddie Redmayne is simply magnificent. Both excerpts from the college years, where he's still healthy,lively and the way he finishes his studies in a nonchalant manner, as the portrayal of a genius who's struck by a muscle disease, are brilliant and striking. A series of events wonderfully visualized using a variety of intense colors at certain times. The university professor who looks surprised at the solutions scribbled on the back of a timetable (10 math assignments which are almost impossible to solve I suppose, of which Stephen could ONLY solve 9). A family dinner Jane was invited to and where you already can get a sense of the intellectual atmosphere. The contradictions between Jane and Stephen when it's about religion. Hawking who excludes everyone after hearing the terrible verdict and the determination of Jane. These fragments stayed with me and made it a fascinating film.


Which theories the brilliant mind of Hawking produced in that cripple body, isn't explained in detail. Here and there black holes, big bangs and the concept of time is mentioned, but eventually I was wondering what exactly Stephen Hawking's ultimate contribution was to mankind. What Jobs achieved you can discover in any computer shop. And from Turing we know that he has broken the Enigma code. But what abstract evidence Hawking delivered, wasn't clear to me. From one moment to the other he's a celebrity and a much sought-after guest speaker. That a woman who lives together with a paralyzed person can't really enjoy a thrilling,romantic life and that she's actually the person who's responsible for all practical matters in a marriage, is of course obvious. And that's the central theme of this biopic: a loving relationship slowly falling apart because of a fatal disease, the awareness of limitations and the danger to seek solace in someone else's arms. So it's mainly a biopic about the wife of Hawking, instead of about Hawking himself. An insight into the life of mathematical genius, who could explain the mystery of the origin of the universe by using his phenomenal intellectual brain, is thus transformed into an ordinary dime novel about an unhappy woman who feels abandoned by her ever loving husband. And that's something I wasn't waiting for.


Despite the romantic approach, I think it's an admirable film. The situation Hawking is facing during his life, ensured that other qualities came up : humor and willpower. These two qualities are subtly incorporated into this film. Even the choice Hawking made at an older age about his marriage, took me by surprise (actually it wasn't much I knew about the life of Hawking). Once again this proves that he sees himself as a normal functioning man. "The Theory of Everything" is a beautiful film that actually moved me and should serve as an example to show what one can achieve with the right attitude and a big portion of perseverance.

Clown
2014
Jon Watts


Perhaps you have nostalgic memories about attending a circus when you were young and you had fun while watching the clowns act. My advice. Don't watch "Clown" because these idyllic reveries won't be the same anymore. And also, were you scared of clowns and thought these were horrible impersonations, you definitely shouldn't watch. I guarantee you the phobia will grow out into clownish proportions. For me who has no emotional connection with clowns and enjoys a ghastly horror, it's mandatory to watch this movie. Just one thing worth knowing. If you're wondering which movie is shown in one particular trailer and the thought of plagiarism comes to mind, I can tell you that this is a fake trailer created by director Jon Watts. The moment Eli Roth saw this trailer, he couldn't restrain his enthusiasm and the only thing he wanted to do was to turn it into a feature film with himself as a producer. Although Kent looks rather ordinary as a clown in the initial stage, the final transformation ensures a grim and frightening character. He can join the club of creepy clowns like those in the movies "IT" (Stephen King) and "All Hallow's Eve" (A trashy tale, but with an ultra-scary clown as main character). I am convinced that there exist other horror movies with a creepy clown in the lead.


The trouble starts when Kent (Andy Powers), a real estate agent, is forced to replace the clown who was booked to perform at the birthday party of his son Jack (Christian Distefano) and whose schedule got mixed up a bit. Luckily he discovers a complete clown outfit in the house of a client, in a chest that is chained to the wall (what a coincidence). Kent appears at home dressed as the clown Dummo and ensures a spectacular birthday party for his son. The next morning, however, he comes to the conclusion that he can't take off the costume: it seems to be merged with his own human skin, the wig is suddenly his natural hair and he can't get rid of the clowns nose despite all efforts. Ultimately he discovers that the costume is made off the skin of an evil demon, called "The Cloyne". Kent gradually transforms into a bloodthirsty Killer Clown with an insatiable appetite.


The initial idea isn't so bad, but the final result is a bit too soft in my opinion. But rest assured, there are plenty of "suggestive" thrilling moments and gore scenes, but it's never straight-in-your-face horror violence what you'll get to see. And yet I enjoyed watching this film (despite the linear storyline with a predictable ending). There are some funny moments, like the clumsy way Kent tries to get rid of the suit and the sublime decapitation mechanism Kent designs, which provides a very different outcome. There are also some subtle fine details elaborated, showing that the makers have looked further than their (red?) nose. Just as Derek in "Afflicted", Kent is unable to take his own life. The only thing that was added to this fact was the confetti. Quite funny and a proof that creativity was indeed present.


There are some gruesome scenes (for experienced horror fanatics still a bit soft) and the atmosphere is sometimes really unnerving. The part that takes place in the indoor playground was extremely thrilling and creepy. You can be sure that you'll be looking at a ball pool in a different way from now on. For me this was the most magnificent moment of the entire movie with claustrophobic images in a labyrinth of corridors, shown in an explosion of colors. But as mentioned before, the central theme around which everything revolves, isn't explicitly portrayed. If you want to promote a creepy and gruesome horror movie, you have to have the guts to handle this in the whole story. Now the most gruesome scenes are handled off-screen and your imagination has to provide the missing images. The inner struggle that Kent should engage with the demon, who tries to change his personality, takes up a large portion of the film. Perfectly outlined but maybe it was still a tad overemphasised. Most horror fans will say that the transformation unfolds way to slow and that they rather saw Kent appearing as a bloodthirsty killer clown much sooner.


In terms of performances, there is no one who excels or disappoints. Andy Powers (unknown to me) manages to show the creepy clown in a convincing manner and with its various facets : entertaining, sad and desperate, resisting, fighting and finally sneaking around as a maniacal killer, looking for victims to satisfy his hunger. Laura Allen plays the desperate wife Meg who (obviously) must face the ultimate confrontation with her "transformed into a not so cheerful clown" husband. Christian Distefano evolves from a clown lover to a frightened little boy who eventually throws his plush clown in the bin. Who wouldn't ? The most amusing supporting role is played by Peter Stormare as the pretty disturbed Karlsson. The Swede Stormare is such an actor who takes care of small roles in many films (The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Armageddon, Bad Boys II, Get the Gringo, The Last Stand, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters ...). His contribution in this film is of greater importance.


"Clown" has its good sides and lesser sides. Unfortunately, there won't be much publicity about this film and most likely you'll only see it on DVD. The idea and the development of the theme about the clown is rather successful, but the final result is still just an average movie. I have enjoyed myself while watching it, but I'll still go to a circus without any worries or fear. And I'm surely not going to run away in a panic when the clown act begins.

Spring
2014
Justin Benson, Aaron Moorhead
"I’m half undiscovered science, a bunch of confusing biochemistry and some crazy hormones."


"Spring" isn't really a horror film. It's a rather mythological love story with a "not so bad" twist. A story about how true love can overcome obstacles and how that makes you choose irreversible options. And this interspersed with sometimes lurid and bizarre scenes. There are several moments in this film, which also proceeds painfully slow (the only flaw I could think of), where you are wondering what the hell is actually going on. And when everything is explained in detail, you frown and instantly you think "What the f * ck was that ?". I admit that the whole metabolic explanation went over my head the first time, but after a while it became really clear and I realized it was dead simple. Ultimately it was a film that took me by surprise, despite its long playing time, and unexpectedly continued to fascinate me.


The beginning of this remarkable film is I could say brilliant. A scarce setting. Young Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci) at the bedside of his dying mother. A joke. A blank stare. A final sigh and then ... finito. The day of the funeral ends with an out of control bar fight. To avoid problems with the local police, Evan decides out-of-the-blue to book a plane ticket and travels to distant Italy. Once there, he ends up in the company of two British loudmouths whose main interests are : pouring as much as possible alcohol in their throat, using gore language and constantly trying to seduce an Italian girl. The day they scram and leave Evan behind, he's determined to get acquainted with the beautiful Louise (Nadia Hilker) with whom he briefly made eye contact, somewhere at a village square. He offers his services at some farm in order to pay for his stay and slowly the two grow closer together. What emerges is a not so obvious relationship. The mysterious and impulsive Louise isn't exactly making it easy for Evan and soon the viewer is fully aware that she's hiding a terrible secret.


What is it that makes this film so unique? Several things as I look at it afterwards. The casual and spontaneous way these two people interact, converse and let love flourish between each other. Not with contrived and forced dialogues. It seemed as if their love game unfolds naturally before your eyes and you witness how two charismatic individuals whirl around each other in a flirting way. You wouldn't say that Evan has charisma. He looks more like a meaningless, unqualified,miserable fellow who has no specific goal in his life and also has a limited wardrobe. Yet he came across as profound and intellectual during philosophical conversations with Louise. And certainly the speed at which he could grasp the whole explanation, proves there's a sparkle of some intelligence. Conversely Louise is a chunk of charisma. A mysterious character who Evan can't get hold of and whose reasoning and reactions raises questions. The reason why she is confusing at times and stands aloof, becomes clearer as soon as the terrible secret is revealed. Superb performances without a doubt.


Also cinematically it's a bit different. The camera movements and positions are sometimes surprising. The bird's-eye view sometimes delivers beautiful images such as the boat trip. These splendor images are regularly interrupted by short shots of all kinds of flora and fauna. Bizarre and sometimes incomprehensible. But all this is ultimately connected with the big secret. The most successful scene is when Louise explains the whole mystery to Evan. Although she doesn't want to explain it initially, she changes her mind and she does it while Evan is on its way through the narrow streets of the Italian village. And while stumbling over the cobbles he listens to the eerie tale. I would have preferred that she'd tell this complicated story calmly at a table because the pivoting camera and flashy long sequence demanded all my attention. And this ensured that the final message didn't directly hit me and sounded pretty hazy. The horror clips are scarce, sometimes unclear and sometimes with pretty ugly CGI. Is this done deliberately? Were the resources limited? I have no idea. But ultimately it all fits perfectly with the rest.


Maybe there's a moment when you're wondering where exactly the romance is hiding ? Maybe you dropped off because it's pretty surreal and it all looks strange. And yet you should do the effort to sit through the movie, because the final denouement is pure romance. This is the epitome of true love. Maybe I raved about this film, but I've never seen the concepts life, love, death,pregnancy and rebirth flow into each other in such a subtle way. A simplistic love story with a quirky twist which eventually ends in a way you hoped it would end. A beautiful, unique film that briefly will resonate to some.

Re: IkkegoeMikke's My Opinion as a Movie-Freak
 

I can understand why you started giggling when you saw the tufts on the ears of the werewolf. They look ridiculous in that picture.

Late Phases sounds like something I might take a look at, though. Werewolf films are, with sadly few exceptions, usually pretty awful.

Chappie
2015
Neil Blomkamp

What do you mean, "reprogram him"?
Don’t play dumb! You know exactly what we mean.
Turn that robot into the illest gangsta on the block.


The number of robots used in a science fiction is uncountable. Some of them can easily be classified under the label "A sad, technical case". R2D2 in "Star Wars" was a pathetic robot most of the time. Twiki from "Buck Rogers" was a helpless phenomenon. David from "AI" was a terribly sad cyborg with the sole desire to become a real boy. Even Ava in "Ex Machina" was a sad piece of electronics searching for freedom. But "Chappie" (so called because allegedly he was "a happy chappie") easily beats them all when it comes to pettiness. I almost fell sorry for him. For the first time the gloomy existence of a robot was displayed. Doom and gloom all over the place. Chappie the outcast who began his career as an intervention robot to protect the civilian population against the ever rising crime, and whose final destination became the scrap heap after another impact of an explosive. And he ends up as a helpless artificially intelligent robot in the midst of a group of gangsters who start educating this childlike electronic device to become a gangsta. Just so he can help out in repaying a debt.


The last year there were quite some movies about artificial intelligence and the emergence of a consciousness in mechanical and electronic creations. "The Machine", "Automata" and "Ex Machina" are recent films using this main theme. The ability to transfer one's consciousness to a storage medium or an operating system such as in "Transcendence" is the other part which is subject to speculation. That's the leitmotiv throughout this cyberpunk story of Neill Blomkamp, the creative director from South Africa who tried to convey a socially critical message in "Elysium". Personally, I thought "Elysium" was a pretty good movie (I haven't seen "District 9" though). To quote myself : "A first-rate SF with extremely titillating images with a social message and mixed with a touching theme that calls for a happy ending. ". Obviously I was looking forward to "Chappie".


Visually it looks pretty decent. "Chappie" itself is one elaborated robot. Just look at the eyes formed by small pixel-like animations on two screens. A kind of extended "Short Circuit" robot, but without caterpillar tracks. No human appearance, but ultimately there are some kind of human feelings inside that metal body. Unfortunately, the similarity to the story of "Robocop" is a little bit too obvious. The rivalry between Deon (Dev "Slumdog Millionaire" Patel) and Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman) was also used in Verhoeven's film. Deon is the designer of the successful robots like Chappie. And Vincent is trying (in a somewhat violent way) to impose his design called "Moose", a machine controlled by a human operator. The similarities between the "Moose" and the ED-209 are striking. The inevitable clash is more realistic, looks flashier and more action-packed than in "Robocop", which is again a plus.


There's one thing that leaves a lot to be desired. The interpretations. Dev Patel was an excellent choice for the naive, nerdy Deon. But Jackman looked more like a Michael Dundee, with his khaki shorts, participating in an "Indiana Jones" movie. The only thing missing was a fat cigar in his mouth. Him being the developer of such a sophisticated technology, seemed utterly impossible. Sigourney Weaver also played a meaningless small role as Michelle Bradley, the hard-hitting CEO of Tetra Vaal, who I'm sure has an impeccable career path, but still sweeps aside Deon's proposal to install an update so the existing robots could grow a consciousness. As CEO, I would at least form a workgroup to research that proposal. And then we have the gang of criminals. Probably I'll sound old fashioned now, but I'd never heard of the South African rap group "Die Antwoord". They are probably excellent when it's about rapping. The acting part though was something else. But despite their lack of experience and the amateurish look, they did a fine job as educators for Chappie and as low-skilled rabble that pushes the poor robot on the wrong track.


In hindsight this was an entertaining film where action and brutal violence was mixed with touching and even humorous passages. Although the latter actually is pure laughing at "Chappie". Aside from "Chappie" being composed of electronic and mechanical components, the reactions and the course of action still looks human. A pathetic robot in the hands of a few half-idiots whose own education failed. And despite the deep philosophical approach and serious themes, this film was not a boring affair full of intricate digressions. A trashy cyber spectacle with flashy action, a comfortable pace and fine SE's which make Chappie's look lifelike and after a while you actually forget you're watching at a computer animation.

Exodus : Gods and Kings
2014
Ridley Scott

“Follow me and you will be free. Stay and you will perish.”


I have a feeling that the Catholic Church has done quite a bit of lobbying in Hollywood, after noticing that their fanbase started to dwindle. First there was the biblical story "Noah" with the famous boat builder who started constructing a huge ark, insisted by "The guy upstairs", just so he and his family could withstand the announced tidal wave together with a pair of every animal species. And now they even convinced Ridley Scott to make a film of the incomparable epic story of Moses who guided his people through the desert to absolute freedom (It's clear he hasn't pointed out the right place, because they still haven't found the right spot). Ultimately, this film won't convert me (it didn't appeal to me either), but I did expect great things from this pimped version of "The ten commandments" from 1956. In the end it was just a boring spectacle in which the whole bag of CGI tricks, special effects and contemporary modern camera technology was opened, to ensure a stunning visual show. I couldn't find any added value compared with the original film from 1956. Indeed, it was dead boring and disappointing with some non-impressive performances in comparison with those from "The Ten Commandments".


Writing a spoiler-free review for a film like "Exodus" isn't really difficult, because most of us know the initial story. In contrast to the story in the Bible with everything miraculous, wondrous and divine described, this film looks at it from a scientific perspective. There's a meaningful explanation for every Egyptian plague. Even the highlight with the Red Sea didn't look as if the hand of God was in play. As Scott announced it himself, the intention was to give all miracles a scientific twist. Similarly, the big trick with the Red Sea. A giant tsunami caused a drawback of the Red Sea. As a realist, I can live with this, and it's a more plausible explanation for the course of events. As an avid movie lover, this was a rather disappointing choice. In my honest opinion this ruined the magic of the movie. To be honest, my high expectations about this scene made sure I persisted in looking further to this rather miserable-long film. I was expecting an impressive fragment (compared to that of the film of 1956) but was treated to an empty, muddy seabed (and judging by the immense noise of the flying birds, it was swarming with air gasping fish) which got flooded again by huge tidal waves. So it wasn't an impressive moment with a sea opening itself. Waiting impatiently for this moment was just a waste of effort.


The performances by Christian Bale (Moses) and Joel Edgerton (Ramses) were sometimes flatly embarrassing and totally unconvincing. Bale really wasn't believable as the famous Moses. As would-be Egyptian, he looked youthful and virile in the beginning. As Moses, he also looked like a virile person, but with a fake beard. Also, he wasn't confident and he even dared to accuse God of going too far. Compare him with Charlton Heston. Now THAT was a real Moses : his stature, the impressive beard, that appearance and he was a perfect example what leadership is all about. Also Edgerton as the cruel ruler Ramses looked downright ridiculous. The moment he lays aside his dangerous sword, being part of "The Village People" wouldn't be out of place with the thick applied mascara and his shiny bald head. Remember Yul Brynner ! Yes, he looked like a dangerous and cruel Egyptian pharaoh. For the supporting roles they recruited some big names like Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul and John Turturro. Obviously neither cost nor effort was spared and this served merely to give the whole spectacle a Hollywood status. The only one who didn't disappoint me was Kingsley, although there is a little wear on the routine of facial expressions by him.


Is there anything positive to report ? Yes of course. Visually it is a feast for the eyes: the whole decor, the costumes, Memphis and the surrounding slums were impressive on screen, the monuments and the ongoing labor, the mandatory large-scale battle scenes (I got that "The Lords of the ring" feeling again), the Egyptian plagues look slick and some images are real gems. The subtle interpretations of the biblical story, were surprising. Firstly, He-who-always-talks-with-a-reverberating-voice is represented by an irritating young boy who speaks with a British accent (Not an uninspired burning bush). He's a real brat who gets terribly worked up when his demands aren't met. I'm not a religious type and certainly no expert when it comes to the content of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that while His Holiness let the 10 plagues rage over Egypt, he still was working on the 10 Commandments, because the rule "Thou shalt not kill" and the concept of "to love thy neighbour" wasn't applied here. The term "turn the other cheek" apparently wasn't customary either. He rather used the slogan "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" I guess. But that's a subject for a theological debate. Furthermore, I think it's wonderful that Moses had to chisel the 10 commandments into the stone tablets himself, instead of "The Big Chief" using some lightning.


Yet I ask myself why Ridley Scott, still one of my favorite directors who produced a series of superb films (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Prometheus) at the age of 77 years has choosen this project. Maybe he wanted to come to terms with God! Conclusion: a visually successful film but substantively it's as empty as the desert during a hot summer. The only thing they need to make is a soft erotic drama about Sodom and Gomorrah, a thriller about the fate of Lot and an adventurous movie about Samson and Delilah, and I think they would have covered the most thrilling parts of the Bible.

PS. It's certainly not my intention to offend those who believe. Who am I to judge if believing is a good or a bad thing. That would make me God, God forbid. But let me quote Ridley : "Religion is the source of all evil. Everyone is tearing each other apart in the name of their personal God". Ultimately, this film will cause a fuss among the devout audience. For me it was simply a simple story.

VANish
2015
Bryan Bockbrader

“Max, hide the beers.
I mean, who gives a ****, man. The whole ****ing van smells like pot and alcohol.”

Seeing the title of this movie, it inevitably made me think of the legendary polish product, used to remove stains. I must admit that as the film progresses, and especially during the rough and gore climax in the end, they sure could use a ******** of this product to remove the resulting stains (blood stains that is). Eventually, the initial meaning of the movie title will be a reference to the fact that the entire film almost solely takes place in a van. "VANish" surely can be considered as a low-budget film that was made in an unreal short period. In 13 days they've made the whole thing and in a way you'll notice that.


Despite the low budget, the film still looks surprisingly fresh and professional. In terms of images anyway. The sultry and hot desert environment where everything happens, shimmers of the screen. Everything is soaked in warm colors. And although it's a simple story that was filmed in a driven way, there are some shortcomings in it. I'm a fan of low-budget movies. And after watching all these million dollar blockbusters, it's sometimes a relief to see a minimalist creation. It's the purity of such movies that intrigue me and not the dizzying special effects or the exuberant paid movie stars who appear in it. That this film won't be nominated for an Oscar is obvious of course, but usually there is still a revelation to discover in such a creative product. In "VANish" this is without a doubt the actress Maiara Walsh who plays brilliantly the part of Emma: a brave young lady who, even though she finds herself in a dire situation, continues to provoke and belittle the three kidnappers. A funny rendition that guarantees hilarious conversations now and then.


Another highlight is the brief appearance of Tony Todd, who I'll always remember as the imposing and frightening "Candyman" from the eponymous movie. A central interlude so absurd that it made me think of "Pulp Fiction" and the character of Todd as intimidating as ludicrous. I'm sure Tarantino could appreciate this fragment. Besides that, I think you can compare "VANish" with "From Dusk Till Dawn" (except that the latter with regard to the finishing touch and elaboration surely is from a different level). At first glance you might think that this is yet another Danny Trejo one-man-show. Are you a hardcore Trejo fan, then you'll be deeply disappointed, because he appears only for a few minutes (which I didn't regret). He might be a crucial part of Jack's (Austin Abke) established plan, but the final emphasis is on the interaction between the four protagonists and the hidden agenda of Jack.


The biggest disappointment was the denouement. In line with the slasher films of the 90s, this film ends in a huge bloodbath and the shown violence reaches excessive proportions. But ultimately, these violent scenes aren't really innovative and they look just as old as those of the good old days. Nevertheless you would expect them to be more realistic and credible with today's technology. It seemed as if the staff used buckets of fake blood on the set. Also, the three kidnappers Jack, Max and Shane were at one time really irritating. Admittedly, Shane (Adam Guthrie) and Max (Bryan Bock Brader, Director) weren't really sane (drugs, alcohol and PTSD are most likely the cause of this), but gradually they became more and more schizophrenic and hallucinatory insane. In contrast, Jack is an example of self-control. That's why a visit to his pissed girlfriend, who broke up with him for unknown reasons, during the abduction is plain normal (for me this was a bit exaggerated).


Perhaps the biggest plus of this film is the simplicity of the story: two perfectly normal looking weirdos (a kind of "Dumb and Dumber"-types) abduct the daughter of a drug baron for ransom, the trip to the meeting is fairly chaotic, one of the kidnappers seems to have a different motivation, the denouement turns out to be quite bloody. And that's perhaps the downside of the film. A too simplistic story. Perhaps they should have extended that period of 13 days a little, to embellish the story a bit and improve the gore, bloody scenes. The movie isn't that bad, but maybe they rushed it a bit as if all hell would fall on them.

We Still kill the Old Way
2014
Sacha Bennett

“They are nasty little piglets. And I really like to hear them squealing before the end.”

When I looked at the cover of this film for the first time, an old-fashioned-looking layout with two evenly sized areas where some veterans are shown above a group of fearless teenagers, I was expecting some kind of third-rate B-movie that you can buy after a while for a bargain price in your local supermarket or which you can get with two big packs of paprika chips in a promotional package with the slogan "eat-some-crispy chips-with-this-bite-sized-movie". In hindsight, I thought this movie didn't deserve that cheap status. It's a reasonably entertaining movie about contemporary youth who have more respect for their iPhone than for a war veteran's hard-earned medals, who are harshly dealt with by some old gangster veterans. The sometimes rather brutal scenes go hand in hand with subtle humor, which I found a wonderful cocktail.


Don't expect an intricate storyline with thoughtful subplots, but a straightforward crime story with respect, loyalty and correctness (if you can call it that way) diametrically opposed to debauchery and vandalism. A kind of "Expendables" which are spring cleaning a suburb in London (East End) because the brother of Richie Archer (Ian Ogilvy) terminates a gang rape in some alley and is being killed by Aaron (Danny-Boy Hatchard), the leader of the gang of those young punks. After the news is being told by an old friend from the neighborhood, he flies over from Spain to take revenge, with the help of some companions from the past.


It's again a crime movie in which the familiar clichés aren't shunned. The youngsters are depicted as stupid nobodies who can't say two sentences without overloading them with swear words and whose situation obviously is the result of a bunch of hopeless social circumstances. Police and investigators are again ignorant and so terribly stupid that their research doesn't progress a bit. The most outstanding example is superintendent Susan Taylor (Alison Doody). I am categorically convinced that her cup size surpasses her IQ score without any problems. A police detective who doesn't even know that her daughter is involved with the leader of the gang. And finally the retired ex-gangsters are presented as saviors of the past. Three times they are portrayed as the local scouts members who ensured the disappearance of scum of the street so everyone could walk at ease on the streets during the night. After seeing some scenes I'm sure they weren't members of the "Vienna Boys Choir" in their time.


But it was the cast that charmed me the most. Especially Ian Ogilvy sparkled on the silver screen. A sort of Roger Moore with a grayish beard who speaks all the time with a kind of Sean Connery accent. A quiet man who oozes authority. A superb acting performance by someone who surely has a legendary list of performances and participations in all kinds of television series. The three companions fit perfectly in that picture: three ruthless, tough elderly who flinch for nothing (but apparently after some efforts suffer from some physical ailments). Those four blood brothers dressed identically and looked like a senior version of "Reservoir Dogs" to me. The torture scene I thought was the highlight of the film: sadism mixed with cynical, sarcastic humor (the metaphor of the modern drill compared to the old-fashioned hand drill was obvious) .I chuckled and gloated at the same time. The youngsters weren't bad either, although it sometimes seemed as if they wanted to copy the American slums. Danny-Boy Hatchard is great as riotous Aaron who doesn't care about anybody and seems fearless, but on second thoughts he's more of a coward who rather sends out his followers instead of a direct confrontation. His way of acting is sometimes exaggerated, especially the language irritated me after a while.


"We still kill the old way" has its charms and its shortcomings. The ending is a bit abrupt and sometimes quite naive performed. Some movie sequences look artificial like the dialogue between Richie and Susan in the pub. But overall in my opinion this was a successful British film and I wouldn't have a problem if they brought up the old guard again to implement the idea suggested by Richie at the end.

Focus
2015
Glenn Ficcara,Rodrigo Santoro

"When you have their attention, you can take whatever you want. You have to be safe."


"Focus" is a romantic crime movie in which the art of pickpocketing, manipulating and swindling is the point of focus (how appropriate). The end result isn't memorable cinema, but a typical popcorn movie with a scam duo fluttering around each other as lovestruck butterflies, playing a masterful game of seduction. Or is it also a con game? The whole film is a succession of ingenious orchestrated scams and ruses. Unfortunately, the ultimate scam is explained in detail very early in the film, so you can predict which direction its heading. Although, it's as entertaining as "Ocean's Eleven", filled with illusions as in "Now You See Me" and with a romantic storyline squirming itself through it.


It all starts in a restaurant in New York where Jess (Margot Robbie) tries to get rid of an annoying date by using Nicky (Will Smith) as a way out. What she doesn't realize is that Nicky is an experienced swindler who knows all the tricks of the trade and who recognized the subsequent attempt to defraud him immediately. Jess manages to become an apprentice of Nicky. Afterwards, they end up in New Orleans, the place to be at that time to steal as much generously stuffed wallets and other trinkets. Only Jess realizes too late that the personal world of Nicky is all about telling lies and cheating. And also that there's no place for romance in this life full of trickery. And certainly not, as his father taught him, with someone from the same milieu.

After the appalling movie "After Earth", Will Smith is back to give shape to this crook (a kind of mature version of The Fresh Prince). Luckily he hasn't invited one of his offspring to participate in this stylish film with enchanting interiors, glitzy hotels, luxury clothes and haute-cuisine scenes (before you know it Jaden could appear in it, while wearing a skirt). And he's accompanied by the breathtaking and tantalizing Margot Robbie, who previously showed her sensuality in "The Wolf of Wall Street". And this also happens to be a brilliant film with conning people as main topic. Besides being amazingly beautiful, this Australian actress can act too. Next to these two main actors, there were some who seemed familiar to me, but I couldn't place them immediately. Except BD Wong, who recently played the chief geneticist Henry Wu in "Jurassic World". He's the eccentric Chinese gambler Liyuan.


And Liyuan was also the key figure in the most (in my opinion) fascinating scene of this film. The Asian gambler who'll bet on anything. The crazier, the better apparently. This crucial scene shows what Nicky is capable of. How he manipulates his victims and indoctrinates them in a psychological way. As he recites somewhere in the movie : "You have to get inside the head of your victim.". But at the same time this also shows the weaker portion of the film. At a certain moment this film becomes highly confusing and it's getting more difficult to discern the difference between truth and deception. The first part is better than expected and sometimes brilliantly portrayed. For example the part where Nicky and his gang hit the streets of New Orleans and demonstrate their palette of pickpockets techniques. The second part looks nice when it's about scenery (which is really beautiful) but lacks passion. Hopefully there aren't any individuals who are going to bring, what is shown here, into practice on a large scale !

Whiplash
2014
Damien Chazelle

“The truth is, Andrew
I never really had a Charlie Parker.
But I tried.
I actually ****ing tried.”


"Whiplash". You could think that this film tells the story of a drummer (the movie poster is a bit of a spoiler when it comes to this) who has suffered this injury by violently playing his instrument. Or he lost control of his car while drumming rhythmically on the steering wheel and crashed into the car driving in front of him. You could link the movie title to these assumptions, because the arrangements that Andrew (Miles Teller) has to play in this masterful and highly rhythmic film may result in a neck injury. And when it comes to losing that control ... well ... then you should go and watch the movie to find out yourself. Anyway, the film title refers to a song written by the American jazz composer Hank Levy. The central theme of the film is about the influence you can have on someone and drive that person to exceed certain inhuman limits of his own ability. Now, for me you're already a top musician when you know the complete arrangement of "Whiplash" and "Caravan" (written by Duke Ellington) by heart. Even if there's a little mistake here and there or you are little bit offbeat, eventually I will have a boundless admiration for the musician after completing such a superhuman performance.



I've never had such a desire to pull someone through the screen and then smack a huge cymbal against his face as now with the presumably extremely talented music teacher Fletcher, brilliantly played by JK Simmons. A man who lives for his music and has a huge passion for it. It's a bit exaggerated that passion though. Exaggerated to such extent that it exceeds the limit of human dignity and by his passion for creating a perfect musician, his way of teaching tends to be sadomasochistic. A kind of militaristic attitude towards his traumatized and frightened students who are wary of any unexpected outburst. A disrespectful howler, suitable as "drill sergeant" in the US Army, and first-class bully, who suddenly swings around music stands, slaps his students in the face and throws out a member of his orchestra, just because he plays a bit out of tune . Afterwards, the accused doesn't appear to be the culprit, but he's just thrown out of the classroom because he didn't know he wasn't the one playing out of tune. A worse stain on the reputation of a professional musician, according to Fletcher.


That's also what Andrew, an ordinary American teenager who studies at the Shaffer conservatory and whose only envisioned aim is to be the best jazz drummer ever, undergoes. The moment he's being asked to join Fletcher's school orchestra, which only consists of a select group of musicians, it becomes the best day of his life. His confidence gets such a boost that he even overcomes his shyness and dares to ask a girl, who works at the cinema, on a date. That it's subsequently leading to a veritable psychological warfare, goes beyond his wildest dream. Gradually the terror policy of Fletcher drives him to the utmost to meet Fletcher's expectations. Even his relationship with Nicole (Melissa Benoist) is terminated abruptly by him. The love for music is displaced by a bloody battle for a wanted spot in the orchestra. The obsessional takes the upper hand, tending towards self-destruction.


I'm not exactly an expert myself when it's about jazz. And I've read reviews where it's suggested that the essence of jazz is completely misrepresented here : "The idea about jazz in this movie is brought in a grotesque way and looks like a ridiculous caricature". The whole history about Charlie Parker and the anecdote Fletcher tells everytime, apparently isn't exactly true at all. Could be, but for me the jazz section wasn't of essence in the story. It's the emotional and physical brutality that Fletcher uses to bring students to a higher level. In this way Fletcher tries to create "HIS Charlie Parker". The whole movie does follow the rhythm of the used music: uplifting, rhythmic and intense. Only the end was predictable and presented us of course the well known rule that the oppressed kicks the oppressor's ass again. Actually I hoped Andrew would put his drumsticks there where the sun doesn't shine at Fletcher.


The performances of Teller and Simmons are obviously extremely stunning. It took me a while before I realized that I've seen Teller in "That awkward moment". A movie I wanted to forget about as soon as possible. Here, however, I thought he was brilliant. And apparently he's an avid drummer and he did all the drumming himself. Hats off and respect ! But the most brilliant achievement was undoubtedly that of Simmons. What a great character sketch with lots of charisma. A character that scares you. Someone you start to hate thoroughly after a while. But in the end I understood a bit what drove him to this behavior. He won an Oscar for this role and in my opinion well deserved. An energetic musical thriller, with a fairly predictable outcome and which is so extremely rhythmic you can't sit still. Highly recommended!

October Gale
2014
Ruba Nadda

“Helen, if you let him in, we are both dead.”

What do I remember of "October Gale" after watching it ? Strange but true, the soundtrack eventually made the biggest impression on me. Melancholic piano music wonderfully fitting the state of mind of Helen Matthews (Patricia Clarkson) . The entire film is carried by the compositions of Mischa Chillak. And especially the beautiful and fragile number "Close Watch" of Agnes Obel "Close Watch" of Agnes Obel playing at the beginning of the film, while Helen navigates her boat over the huge lake to civilization, was perfect at that moment in the film. The modest and understated performances by Clarkson and Speedman (William) were outstanding. And afterwards I also had the desire to travel to such a remote island where you can stay undisturbed. But these are ultimately the only positive things I can think of. It's a fairly empty and uninspired film. "October Gale" described as a thriller, with a touch of drama and romance in it. But ultimately it's only a brief sketch about Helen's process of handling the loss of her husband, with varying emotions coming up. There was a brief moment of romance in the present and a lot of it in the flashbacks. And to label it as a thriller, they really should have come up with a bit more tension since that section was extremely limited.


Helen Matthew, apparently a doctor, goes to an island in Ontario where she and her late husband James (Callum Keith Rennie) used to spend their weekends and holidays in a weekend cottage that has been already 100 years in possession of James' family. Apparently, the only purpose of this trip is to finally clean up that cabin and come clean with the past. An entire cleaning operation so to say. This is accompanied by painful memories and tangible confrontation with the past. When it's all a bit to much to her, she decides to go and buy a new fuse. After some delay she returns to the island, while a powerful storm arises. In the course of the evening she finds the wounded young man William (Scott Speedman) with a gunshot wound in his shoulders and who gives, after being taken care of, a vague explanation about what happened to him.


A simple story which is shown on the big screen in a simple way. At first I thought it was intriguing and fascinating. I was waiting for how the story would develop. But in the end I realized I was still waiting for it. By the time the denouement with the ultimate confrontation came, it was finished before I knew it. If you think this movie will end with a bang, I can already tell you that the curtain will fall with two modest bangs. There were also some dubious facts that made me frown my forehead. Most of these seemed to be rather far-fetched, and some weren't very logical

The fact she couldn't connect with her cell phone, while this really wasn't a problem in the beginning, made clear that communication waves in these parts of the country aren't really weatherproof and are blown to all directions at the slightest storm. It was also totally incomprehensible to me where those emotions between the two protagonists suddenly came from. There was no apparent reason for that. Perhaps the intimacy during the operation and the additional care, created the charged atmosphere and ensured the chemical reaction between Helen and William. And apparently it's custom in those parts that after getting punched in the face, you'll make some coffee for the attacker. But the most annoying thing was the fact that the whole affair about William wasn't explained. Eventually I wanted to know what had happened and what caused it.


"October Gale" feels like an admirable attempt. But this attempt to make something of it, fails unfortunately and results in a calmly developing film with a mix of emotions. The melancholy and letting go of the past, the absence of affection and the moment someone can feel it back again and the ultimate suspense with vengeance as a central motif. The performances weren't the problem. Especially Clarkson provided a serene and wonderful performance, despite the limited script. Even Speedman sparkled at times, but I guess he was necessary to attract a female audience. The only one who was pretty disappointing (his limited role probably had something to do with it), was Roth. He acted as if he had just flown over briefly to finish the job.
Conclusion: Cinematographic sometimes a joy to look at, but the content missed a little panache and passion.

Re: IkkegoeMikke's My Opinion as a Movie-Freak
 

Nice to see someone else appreciate Spring. I was under the impressions it was going to be a horror, which it definitely wasn't, but ended up quite liking it regardless.

I added Vanish to my watchlist; it looks like something I'd enjoy. Keep up the good work!

There's plenty to add here :)

To be honest, this one took me by surprise. I wasn't expecting much from it, but it stunned me in a way !

Kingsman : The Secret Service
2014
Matthew Vaughn
I am offering you the opportunity to become a Kingsman.
A tailor?
A Kingsman agent.
Like a spy?
Of sorts. Interested?
You think I've got anything to lose?


I'm not a big fan of Bond films. Too clean, too boring and too stiff. And there was always Q who came up with some new inventions and coincidentally they came in handy in that movie. I would love to own his crystal ball. Also, every movie was stuffed with action, but you'd never see a speck of blood (Before all Bond fans react furiously: I admit that I haven't seen all Bond-movies. So I could be wrong on that part). And in every film a bunch of gorgeous ladies paraded around, but I've never seen a millimeter of offensive nudity. "Kingsman : The Secret Service" feels like a James Bond flick, but then provided with all these last-mentioned facts and an excessive dose of humor.


Harry Hart (Colin Firth) is a member of "The Kingsmen", an espionage organization, which is even more secret than the secret service itself, that gets al the dirty jobs from MI6. Hart is a genuine Englishman and looks more like a distinguished businessman or banker than a master spy. During an operation in the Middle East, the father of Gary "Eggsy" (Taron Egerton) got killed, after which Hart gives this toddler a medal that could be useful in the future. 17 years later, during the kidnapping of a professor by the multi millionaire Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson), another secret agent is killed during the rescue operation. Hart recommends Eggsy (grown up, unemployed and no prospects) as a candidate to join "The Kingsmen ".


The whole film has the atmosphere of an old spy movie like James Bond or "The Avengers", a popular series from the 70's with John Steed as a secret agent who faithfully wore a bowler and was equipped with an ordinary umbrella with all sorts of ingenious gadgetry. Compared with the civilized manners in those days, "Kingsman" is rather brutal and radical. Don't get me wrong. Hart is an example of courtesy and attempts to be as reserved and correct as possible, regardless of the situation he finds himself in, as befits a true Brit. But it's mainly the dissolute tone and graphic violence that makes the difference. The film sometimes tends to take on Tarantino-like proportions. The fragment in the local church is such an example. 3 Minutes of rage swirling across your screen with Hart acting as a purebred John Wick. Or the scene in the local pub where he demonstrates equivalent fighting techniques as "The Equalizer". Colin Firth doesn't look particularly like a well-oiled fighting machine and some movements look rigid, but all in all this 55-year was convincing enough. He proves that besides serious roles full of drama as in "Devil's Knot" and "The Railway Man", he's capable to handle lighthearted, action-packed roles as well.


When Eggsy begins the grueling training, with annoying rich kids as opponents, I was afraid it would lead to a kind of "Ender's Game" or "Divergent" story. Fortunately, this wasn't the case. The whole training proceeded under the watchful eye of Merlin (Mark Strong). The only thing that was a bit unbelievable for me, was the fact that an inexperienced teenager as Eggsy, whose most exciting life experience so far was peeing against an electric cattle fence, can grow out into an experienced parachutist in such short period. However I tolerated this since this action comedy doesn't take itself seriously in the first place. And also lets mention Michael Caine, as the Godfather of all Kingsmen, who perfectly took upon himself the role of ancien.


In a real spy movie, a bad guy shouldn't be missing obviously. This part was played with visible pleasure by Samuel L. Jackson as the lisping multimillionaire Richmond Valentine who worries about the future of the earth. In particular, the global warming, concerns him. For this, however, he has devised a diabolical plan. Only the implementation of this plan is inadequate. Jackson is peerless in this role (About time after a few feeble performances) as the eccentric Valentine who can't stand seeing a drop of blood and tends to lose consciousness in that case. To avoid this, he has a graceful assistant called Gazelle (Sofia Boutella). A true fury and fighting machine with razor-sharp legs with the necessary amputated limbs as a result. Finally, also a honorable mention for Hanna Alström as the Swedish princess. She didn't need much acting talent, but her graceful butt was prominently displayed in the end.


"Kingsman: The secret service" is a must see movie. Do you enjoy a touch of dry English humor, overly bloody action moments and all of this with a wink to the great spy movies of yesteryear ? Surely this film is made for you. Brace yourself for this espionage which contains brute force as well as humor. And it doesn't avoid well known clichés, but still brings them in a different way so that you actually won't notice it really. Magistrale movie !

Interstellar
2014
Christopher Nolan

“I'm not afraid of death. I'm an old physicist - I'm afraid of time.”

Magnificent. Fascinating. Absorbing. Breathtaking. Titillating. Mind-blowing.




Nolan managed to make an epic film. A mix of fiction and non-fiction. The set-up to establish a colony on an unknown planet in another galaxy ("To boldly go where no man has gone before" comes spontaneously to mind) is not really science fiction anymore, given at this time all preparations are made to try the same thing on Mars. But as they plunge into the wormhole, after which they'll be teleported to another galaxy, the non-fiction ends and speculations begin. How it works, is demonstrated in a playful manner, using a sheet of paper and a pencil. Just to keep it simple for someone like me and explain it in an understandable way. But I have to admit that the visualization of this utopian trip looks stunning. As a counterpart of this high-tech future story, there's also the human aspect whereby Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) has to make a difficult choice between his family and saving humanity.


The space trip is preceded by the melodramatic part of the movie which I normally would have described as the corny sappy part. But here I didn't have that feeling at all and the whole was brought well-founded. The sketched relationship between Cooper, Murph (Mackenzie Foy) and Tom (Timothée Chalamet) on the dusty ranch, is explained in detail and in a sound manner. In gloomy conditions they try to grow crops. A project that is doomed to fail because fungi slowly eats away all crops on our planet. Cooper, a former astronaut who was employed by NASA, focuses on the agricultural sector now (because there is a need for the production of food, and not space experts) and has constructed a fully automated farm. According to Murph there's a so-called poltergeist who wants to deliver a message. Because of this phenomenon they discover a secret NASA complex run by John Brand (Michael Caine) who explains to Cooper his exodus theory and asks him to lead this exodus as pilot of the intergalactic spaceship "Endurance".


Usually the soundtrack of a film leaves me Siberian cold. But in "Interstellar" the composer Hans Zimmer created a perfect atmosphere with his compositions. Cooper leaving his family wouldn't be so impressive with the supporting organ sounds missing. Knowing Nolan you can also assume that the appearance of the film would be impressive. And it is. The interior of the Endurance, the landscapes of the three planets, the images of infinite space, the black hole Gargantua, the presentation of the fifth dimension and the trip through the black hole. It all looked very impressive and realistic. Nolan is also known as a supporter of limited-use-of-CGI and it wouldn't surprise me if they made use of huge settings interspersed with tiny elaborated scale models. The planet Miller I personally found the most successful and imaginary result. And finally I just like to mention the accompanying robots TARS and CASE. An innovative design with a humorous communication interface.


What remains are the performances, with Matthew McConaughey as main figure. After seeing him at work in "The Lincoln Lawyer", "Mud" and "Dallas Buyers Club" (for which he won an Oscar), you can only agree that McConaughey is a talented actor with a peculiar accent who leaves a mark on each film. Personally, I think "Interstellar" isn't his most impressive rendition. Yes, he's cut out for the emotion-rich family parts, but as an intellectual NASA astronaut I found him quite implausible. In contrast, I thought Jessica Chastain (as the adult Murph) and Anne Hathaway (daughter of Professor Brand) acted excellent. Casey Affleck (adult Tom), Topher Grace (Murph colleagues and for the umpteenth time in a fairly geeky role) and Matt Damon appear only briefly and each with a different important contribution. The only one who really should feel at home in this film is John Lithgow, for his participation in "3rd Rock from the Sun".


I could repeat the superlatives I wrote down at the beginning because despite some developments that went beyond my understanding and an ending I wasn't impressed by, this is still a wonderful film that manages to blend both the scientific and the personal feelings of the protagonists perfectly. I'm still wondering who ultimately planted that wormhole near Saturn, that fifth dimension still goes over my head and how Cooper finally succeeded in sending the right information needed to Murph also seemed quite an achievement. And posturing about love as something scientific that knows no boundaries, was also an excuse to give it all a deeper philosophical tone. But ultimately, this is another SF that can be included in the gallery of all those other masterpieces.

A most violent Year
2014
J.C. Chandor

“If I were you, I would start treating us with a little more respect or I guarantee he will make it his mission in life to ruin you.”

New York, 1981. The most violent year in the history of the metropolis New York. No doubt about it, but that violence probably took place somewhere else than where this film took place. Are you expecting some sort of mafia film like "Once upon a time in America", "The Godfather", "Scarface" or "The Untouchables" ? Well sorry, but this will be a disappointment for you because it's not such type of mafia movie. Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac) is the opposite of a Don Corleone. Anything that smells like mafia stuff or corruption, he tries to avoid studiously. He's trying to run his business in oil fair and square, without falling back on violent and corrupt interventions. And this despite the tough competition which apparently has no problem with applying harsh and intimidating methods. Abel, the epitome of honesty in these turbulent criminal years, faces terrified truck drivers and an increasing loss because of stolen oil. This together with an investigation by the District Attorney Lawrence (David Oyelowo), who is determined to uncover wrongdoings, ensures that an investment Morales trying to finalize with some Jewish businessmen, will be compromised and is doomed to fail.


I didn't expect a film about a supplier of oil in the first place. It certainly provides opportunities for other business sectors to be placed at the center of public attention. After "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and "Promised Land" it was time to put the hard-working fuel suppliers, who make sure that we ordinary citizens have a cozy warm house during a severe winter, in the spotlight. I don't want to have a prejudice against this noble profession, but as a subject, it resulted in a painfully slow movie in which there was not much to be seen. I did notice the terrible shortage of light-bulbs in that time. Large parts of the film are bathed in scorching darkness. Dark offices, dark corridors, nocturnal wanderings through the house and garden, dark tunnels and staircases. Probably it has to do with the fact that these were the most nefarious years and the protagonists were accustomed to nightly activities. Or it's because many things weren't allowed to see the light in that period ? I'm still completely in the dark about that.


I'll be honest though. The performances are spectacular. Isaac plays the stubborn manager masterfully. Despite all the setbacks and the enormous pressure he remains determined on the outlined course he doesn't want to deviate from. Despite the warning from a union man that the truck drivers will abandon him and the continuing distrust of his wife Anna Morales (Jessica Chastain), which apparently has a mafia past, has a dizzying cleavage and commits the only violent offense in this film (with a poor deer as the victim), he doesn't want to yield to unfair practices. He fits perfectly in snowy New York. He's as cool and chilly. And that was my biggest problem with the characters. They are all totally numb. Anna is even colder than Abel. The only one who showed some emotions was Julian (Elyes Gabel) whose fear and desperation were believable.


I've also seen A.J. Chandor's film "All is lost" long time ago and can only conclude that this film fits perfectly. "All is lost" was also visualized beautifully with an unusual rendition, but painfully slow and boring. Brilliant performances, elaborate personalities and expressive character roles serve as the foundation of timeless classics. But when a movie only contains that and has nothing else interesting to offer, you can be sure that a large part of the audience will be slightly disappointed. Including me.

I'm sure that Morales has the saying "Honesty is the best policy" framed above his bed. And yet, his character was quite contradictory when it comes to being honest. The term "morality" is extremely valuable to Morales (What's in a name), but at the final confrontation with Lawrence, corruption comes into play. The "like knows like" feeling pops up and then finally Morales tends to do a favor in a way it's still applied nowadays in the world of business and politics. And the ultimate act in the end, with a banal handkerchief being used to seal a puncture in a huge oil tank, is implausible as a physical phenomenon and also in contradiction with the character of Abel. Apparently the business aspect is more important than the human aspect at that moment. Eventually still a ruthless businessman, our saint Abel.

John Wick
2014
Chad Stahelski

"John will come for you and you will do nothing, because you can't do nothing."


Do you hate complicated films where your brains hurt while trying to keep up with the story ? Do you start to drool spontaneously when watching endless violent action scenes ? You answered twice "Yes Sir" ? Well, then "John Wick" is cut out for you. Because the story is simple in a way that even your goldfish can follow it easily and it it contains a concatenation of rough,cruel liquidations. I never thought that stealing a Ford Mustang and wringing the neck of a puppy could result in a never-seen, raging revenge. John Wick, however, thought otherwise. This retired former hitman leaves a bloody trail in New York, after they steal his car and kill his dog, donated by his deceased wife. The fact that this is committed by the son of his former boss, who's from the Russian mob, doesn't impress him. Instantly he demolishes his basement floor. Years ago, he buried his whole arsenal of weapons and other adult toys there, just to forget his past and change gear in his new life.


Digging up Keanu Reeves again, certainly wasn't a bad idea. The man has a natural talent for portraying an icy cool killer. His emotionless visage is perfect for the role. And the less dialogs in a film, the better. It's not the dialogues, he has to struggle through, that gives him the appearance of a cold-blooded assassin, but his stoic calmness and the expressionless gaze does. He demonstrated this already in "The Matrix" and also in "47 Ronin" (wrongly considered by many as a pulp film). If you want to keep track of the number of victims, you should purchase a large oversize abacus. .

I enjoy a straightforward action film, with not to much frills and where the emphasis lies on mindless brawling and shooting. It shouldn't be serious all the time. Although after a while I felt kind of impassive about it and sank deeper into my cozy seat to watch it with such an infinite look. I compared it with a ride on a wildly popular, matchless rollercoaster. During your first ride, you feel the adrenaline rushing through your body and you rush back to the entrance full of enthusiasm just to experience that indescribable feeling once again. During the tenth drive you're sitting in it very relaxed, looking around in search for the next challenge. That's "John Wick" in a nutshell. A flashy rollercoaster ride that starts fiery and impressive, but as the journey takes longer, the euphoria fades away slowly.


In terms of genre, it's ultimately of the same level as "The Equalizer". Only the latter contained a bit more story, I thought. In "John Wick" you have a stolen car and a dead dog on the one hand, and on the other hand an increasing number of corpses. That's it. And yet it's pure enjoyment witnessing the flashy action and shown coolness. Chad Stahelski, a former stuntman (interesting fact: he was the one who played Neo in "The Matrix" during dangerous scenes), doesn't beat around the bush and creates a series of precisely choreographed fight sequences. Without much effort he succeeds in giving Reeves the reputation of a bogeyman. But as Viggo (Michael Nyqvist) remarks it himself: "John is not exactly "The Bogeyman". He's the one you sent to kill the ****in 'Boogeyman.". And this top assassin moves in a swirling way to eliminate his enemies with a well-aimed shot. His shooting technique is slightly off-track and looks somewhat forced. But that doesn't keep him from transforming the place where he appears, into an outright shooting gallery.


There were some pretty surreal scenes which impressed the imagination. Like the "Continental" hotel, the professional cleaning team and the reputation of John Wick in itself and his cult status hovering around him as an aura. "The Continental Hotel" could serve as a scenic design in a future Batman movie, which bathes in a real cartoonish atmosphere. It's a famous meeting point for notorious assassins, with its own monetary system, an unnaturally friendly desk clerk that meets with all the needs of the guests and a resident physician who can be called for when guests return reasonable damaged after taking care of their "business". There is only one golden rule which is mercilessly punished after being violated. It's prohibited to arrange matters in the hotel itself.


For most of the supporting acts you can safely say that there's a total lack of character development. Most are no more than a shadow in this film, who come momentarily into view and then they're mercilessly being slaughtered. But it seems as if they are suffering from anemia, because despite the continuous aggression, there is very little blood splattered around. So only Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen (Iosef) and Willem Dafoe remain. Michael Nyqvist wasn't very convincing as Viggo and was at the times too theatrical. Alfie Allen played the well-known roll as the conceited, imagining-himself-being-untouchable son of a criminal who as he starts to realize what predator is hunting him, needs a larger size Pampers. Not that very original. And Willem Dafoe tries, but gets little screenplay to play himself into the spotlight. So Reeves is the only one to steal the show. And he does that with panache and style. Once he slips into that measured black suit and swings a duffel bag full of toys for adults in it, over his shoulder, he walks confidently towards you while the camera zooms in. And then you can brace yourself. Magnificent.


"John Wick" isn't exactly of a high level in cinematic terms but does meet the requirements of the targeted audience. A pure action movie full of spectacle. Unfortunately, there are rumors that the sequel "John Wick" is planned already. I admire Reeves that he's still capable to portray a character as Wick at his age of 50. He can take that kind of personage to a next level, but I'm afraid that this sequel will be a weak carbon copy from the original.

Wolves
2014
David Hayter

Life is like an onion.
That's what they say.
The more you peel it back,
the more it makes you cry.
Especially when
you're afflicted.

It's obvious that everyone is looking for that gold mine to produce something similar like "Twilight". They even got help from David Hayter (writer of "X-men") and miraculously they found another theme. Imagine a brainstorming session at TF1 International : "Hey, Twilight used vampires . What if we use a pack of werewolves instead ? And a handsome young guy as a key player who meets a fresh, young wench somewhere in a remote place ? Maybe it's the start of a brand new series that will be so successful, teens will stumble over each other to see it ! ( followed by applause, cheers and heartfelt hugs) ". After watching this horribly acted and meaningless predictable story about an ancient tribe of werewolves who've retreated in a commune where they eventually compete among each other, I recommend to store these plans. Just to avoid a financial hangover.


Clayden Richards (Lucas Till) has a fairly turbulent puberty. For instance he dreams about werewolves at night. His parents blame this on his raging hormones that play tricks on him. However, everything is going really well for him. He has wonderful and caring parents, a gang of friends and the prettiest girl in school. He is a quarterback and has the appearance of an Adonis. Most teenage girls would melt just looking at him. Until he beats up an opponent during a match and while making out with his girlfriend, the beast in him bursts out. Literally. He flees from the place where he grew up and on his trip some guy called Wild Joe sents him out to the deserted village Lupine Ridge. Of course the place is swarming with werewolves. As you can see, the name of the village "Lupin" is distracted from the Latin word lupinus. Very subtle. What follows is the revealing of Clayden's past and his relation to Connor, a kind of alpha werewolf who rules the place.


Nothing new under the werewolf-moon and at times it's downright ridiculous. You really can't say it's exciting and it reminded me of "Teen Wolf" with Michael J. Fox. Only the latter I actually could appreciate. At times the transformation of the villagers looked successful. But mostly I thought I was watching the Muppet show with some wearing carnaval costumes. However, I hope the makers weren't serious because I couldn't suppress a smile. I still don't know whether this was a smile because it all looked ridiculous or because that shown on the screen was actually meant to be funny. Some performances were pitifully poor. Lucas Till has the charisma of a flowerpot. Merritt Patterson looks delicious (useful for the werewolf Clayden) and sweet. Only Jason Momoa could convince me. But probably his huge impressive stature and his deep penetrating eyes caused this. The best acting performance was Stephen McHattie as the cooperative farmer who of course knows the whole history of Clayden's family.


"Wolves" is as thrilling as the stretched elastic in the underpants of a grandmother. Not really exciting. Even the presence of the beautiful Patterson and the sensual scene with Till doesn't help. I can still remember me seeing a fragment of a black and white movie when I was young, with someone turning into a werewolf because of the shrill sound of a school bell. That scared the crap out of me and for days I had nightmares (mind you I was only 12 years or so). "Wolves" will only keep me from sleeping because I'll be laughing irrepressible. And despite the sometimes bloody splatter scenes, you can hardly call it horror. It's also known that a person who's mutated into a werewolf, won't make use of his natural voice ! The term "Popcorn-teenager-horror" for tar sensitive souls will fit well. I praised "Wer" and thought it might be a revival of the werewolf genre. This film is quite the opposite.

The Judge
2014
David Dobkin

“The law is the only thing capable of making people equal”


Hank Palmer (Robert Downey Jr.) is a shrewd and successful lawyer with a smooth tongue. A chatterbox that overwhelms you with its arguments and you can't get in a word edgeways. He uses arguments and counter-arguments in such a natural way, as if he's ordering something to eat at a sandwich bar. Therefore for some he's an insufferable person who does not mince his words. My favorite scene is the confrontation with some drunk local figures in a local bar where he and his two brothers Glen (Vincent D'Onofrio) and Dale (Jeremy Strong) chat about lost times. The way he gives those windbags tit for tat and knows how to silence them, is a perfect representation of who the person Hank Palmer is. This piece reminded me a bit of Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting" who puts a group of university students in their place. Slyly I enjoy those moments. I know, schadenfreude is not a nice virtue.


Because of family circumstances, Hank must return to his hometown which he turned his back on years ago. The funeral of his mother confronts him with his past. There are his brother Glen, who once stood at the beginning of a promising career as a professional baseball player, and his other mentally handicapped younger brother Dale, who has a passion for filming and usually carries a camera to capture all kinds of scenes. And then there's his father Joseph Palmer (Robert Duvall) who's invariably called "Judge" by everyone. A bitter man who can look back at an impressive career as a judge in the town of Carlinville and who's more concerned with his legacy as a righteous judge than his current miserable situation. The next day after the three brothers went on a night out, Mark Blackwell is found dead and his blood is found on the grill of Judge's car. Hank's father can't remember anything and pleads not guilty. Were it not, that years ago he made the error to give this Mark Blackwell a light imprisonment who after being released drowned a 16-year-old girl, there probably still would be some doubt. But this fact does give Judge a decisive motive for murder with hit and run.


"The Judge" is not a typical courtroom drama as we've seen frequently. It's a subtle made family drama with the legal dispute as a side issue and the emphasis on the family joust. Unresolved resentment and mistakes made in the past, played an important role. The whole is explained in detail in a brilliant and subtle way and time has been taken to outline the whole family situation, based on conversations and fragments filmed by Dale. And despite the significant playing time of 140 minutes, you won't get the feeling that you have to drag yourself through it. An intriguing and fascinating family sketch that sometimes tends to become melodramatic (culminating in the confrontation in the basement during a suddenly emerging tornado).

It was to be expected that the confrontation between Downey Jr. and Duvall would guarantee some acting from the top shelf. A brilliant performance by Duvall as the stubborn paterfamilias, who nevertheless expresses some human feelings as his granddaughter comes to visit (incidentally also an admirable role played by Emma Tremblay). Downey can be arrogant. He demonstrated this already in "Iron Man". The difference is that this bugged me in "Iron Man", whereas it fits perfectly here. And definitely worth mentioning are the two emotional (and sometimes funny) renditions of D'Onofrio and Strong. Vera Farmiga ("The Conjuring"), as the ex-girlfriend of Hank, we see trotting along and merely serves as a distraction of the clash of arms between the two Palmer-clan members.


"The Judge" is a pleasure to watch when it comes to the acting, but ultimately it's still just a typical family drama with a court case as a side topic. For the rest, it's crammed with every imaginable emotive subject such as death, illness and an unwavering feud. The priority is the father-son relationship with some story-lines wrapped around it. Ultimately these stories have nothing to do with the core of the matter and only serve to incorporate frequent used cliches so it's guaranteed you'll use a handkerchief to wipe away a tear.

American Muscle
2014
Ravi Dhar

“You owe…you pay.”

"American Muscle" is a simple revenge film (the terms exploitation and grindhouse are commonly used) and you certainly won't expect a creative storyline and memorable performances. The only purpose of such a type of film is to create a violent flick as quickly as possible and with a limited budget. There certainly is an audience for such films and I myself sometimes like watching such a go-for-it-without-thinking pulp film. This gritty film also focuses on brute force, bloody settlements and some female nudity. But what annoyed me the most after a certain time, was the totally nonsensical and vastly simplistic content. Most of the characters their muscle development isn't proportional to the development of the brains. Sometimes the shown stupidity in here, made me laugh spontaneously.


The story is dead simple. John Falcon (Nick Principe) has been released after a prison sentence of 10 years. As soon as he leaves the gate, he has only one goal and that's to take revenge on those who ensured him to end up behind bars. He also wants his wife Darling (Robin Sydney) back by his side. Darling is a naive girl with a drug problem. Despite John's attempts to keep her from the deadly stuff, it seemed as if she's the one who caused that John received those years of imprisonment. The path John's following, leads directly to the members of the responsible gang of which his brother Sam (Todd Farmer) is the leader.


So what we get to see is a seventies-looking brutal film full of unfussy sadistic violence and massacres. The fake blood gushes through the film, the bloody bullet wounds are imaged frequently unscrupulously and you can gawk almost every 5 minutes at some female nude. Frankly however, most of them better left their clothes on, because they weren't really appetizing to look at anyway. Besides the desirable-looking dancers in the stripteasebar where John walks in during his trip, most look like unkempt sluts who get drugs as a reward after they've let themselves being used. John's concern about Darling wasn't really sincere in my opinion, since he has sex with every woman he come across his path (It seems to me that in that area there are living a bunch of women who aren't hard to get at all. Or they lack something in certain areas, if you catch my drift). Apparently the love between him and Darling isn't something he takes too seriously.


Nick Principe needs no effort to look unsympathetic. He's a real badass, with a body the size of an antique wardrobe and with pumped up, tattooed muscles. He isn't very talkative. His conversations are usually limited and his dialogues concise out of a few phrases he pronounces muttering. He rumbles through the desert scenery as a terminator. Nothing and no one can stop him. The fact that the intellectual level of his opponents isn't higher than that of a cactus that has been standing all day in the blazing desert sun, helps too of course. For sure the most dumb ones were the biker gang members, who accepted the assignment to kill John and send him to the happy hunting grounds. They could as well have a target cell painted on their obese body, while carrying a sign with the slogan "Please aim below in the bull's-eye." The only one who gets an award for the most courageous person of all, is one of the bimbos from Sam's entourage (an old-fashioned alternativo with a huge, inverted brush on her head), who despite being a light weight and having a muscle-less stature, takes it up against John. Respect.


The real fans of this genre will probably enjoy this film. However this rugged film was a bit too simplistic and at times completely idiotic. Some fights were nicely put on the screen (despite the amateurish shooting skills again) and other scenes were plain ridiculous. Most dialogues are negligible and meaningless (the toilet scene is a typical example). The reason for the entire revenge expedition and the cause of John ending up in prison wasn't obvious. However, there are some positive points. The playing time is roughly 77 minutes long so it's really a film you can watch in between. The best fragment was in the desert landscape where iron works stood around. But sadly enough, this was ruined by a lousy, silly-looking shoot-out. "American muscle" looks much like the scantily dressed women in this film. There is the attempt to make it look interesting, but ultimately the end result is ugly, insignificant and only good for a one time use.

Bhopal : A prayer for rain
2014
Ravi Kumar

“We are Union Carbide, united in our efforts to build a better future for everyone.”

Despite the fact it's already indicated at the beginning that they have incorporated certain facts in a different way, just to increase the dramatic effect of the film, I was stunned and shocked after watching this docudrama. Frankly, I had never heard of this industrial disaster that took place in Bhopal in 1984. A human tragedy that could have been avoided. But greed and indifference were the main causes leading to this human tragedy. Martin Sheen plays Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide, and is perfectly casted for this movie. He manages to portray Anderson as a man with some human feelings, while on the other hand his business instincts prevail again and he asks casually why an amount of pesticide isn't sold. However his contribution is outplayed by the typically Indian actors. Bollywood movies are unknown territory to me and I guess they usually aren't the epitome of superb performances or a stunning footage, but I'm convinced that the message of this movie was much more important.


December 1984, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. In a Union Carbide pesticide plant, a chemical reaction of water with Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) ensure that a deadly toxic gas cloud spreads over the surrounding slum. The next day there are around 2,000 casualties and hundreds of thousands of residents affected by the toxic cloud. Soon after another 8,000 victims would die because of that. 30 years later, there are still problems and casualties caused by this disaster. The combination of inadequate security, human errors and mismanagement caused this terrible disaster. Had the slip-blind plates been placed so water wouldn't mix with the chemical substance, if only the scrubbers were functioning (but they were under repair), had the refrigeration worked and was the torch installation not taken out of service, this could have been prevented.


A terrible topic about the disastrous consequences caused by human negligence and greed, which is played in a fair way by Indian actors. Especially by Rajpal Yadav as Dipil. A person who's lovable and sometimes comical at the same time. A rickshaw-puller whose vehicle was recreated into pleated iron after transporting a corpulent passenger, who's desperately looking for some work, so he can support his family, pay for the impending wedding of his sister and mainly keep his wife satisfied. He sees a chance to work in the factory as an ordinary handyman. Afterwards he's offered a better paid job (after the previous person dies because a drop of Methyl Isocyanate dripped on his arm, which subsequently is indicated as a typical accident because of an irresponsible act of the concerned person). Essentially he's technically incompetent for this job. But finally it's a dead simple task : he has to keep an eye on a pressure gauge and let someone know when it falls below a certain level. A beautiful rendition and a character that arouses pity every time. Motwani (Kal Penn) is a local reporter who fills his own newspaper with rumors and allegations against Union Carbide. In retrospect, he proved to be an important character in reality. These two together with Martin Sheen, are the key players in this drama. Mischa Barton is presented as the American journalist Eva Gascon, but soon she vanishes from the scene and you wonder what importance her part was anyway.


The known outcome is visualized in a simple yet effective way. Thousands of dying victims, coughing up blood and suffocating. Children looking around apathetically. Helpless doctors trying to save victims with the insufficient available resources. And while this drama unfolds, the chairmen of Union Carbide are trying to find a way out so they can put the blame on anybody but themselves. The fact that there's a description in the contracts about the slip-blind plates, is sufficient enough to conclude it's the factory managers fault. The final settlement made with Union Carbide was a compensation for damages of a lousy 470 million dollars. It shows once again what a human life is worth for such industrial giants. Sickening.

Boyhood
2014
Richard Linklater

"You don't like me much, do you Mason?
That's okay, neither do I.”

As a concept movie, "Boyhood" definitely can be called a successful experiment. It took Richard Linklater no less than 12 years to realize this film. It's a registration of the daily life of an average American family with characters interpreted by the same actors or actresses in different life cycles. Is this an unique concept ? Unfortunately not. In 2001, the Harry Potter saga started with the main characters growing up while the story progressed. So that gimmick is already used.

I'm also the proud owner of a whole collection of home videos I made for years with my Sony Handycam. Would the result be similar to "Boyhood" if I'd edit these nostalgic film clips into a motion picture ? No of course not, because my creation wouldn't be right. The synchronization between the different periods would be wrong. The themes wouldn't be in harmony. The continuity wouldn't be guaranteed, especially regarding the overall atmosphere. In terms of content, there might be similarities, but ultimately it simply will become a banal family documentary, dominated by triviality and platitude. What I'm trying to say is that probably there will be some who'll portray "Boyhood" as an extra-long home video, while for me it's not so evident to come to this result. Ingenious and phenomenal at the same time.


Don't expect truly earth shaking events or developments. You only witness the calmly on-going life of Mason (Ellar Coltrane). A life like most of us have experienced it. A life full of ups and downs, with its euphoric moments and sad moments. A life that forms you as a human being into the personality you'll finally be when reaching adulthood. Also Mason goes through all these stages : first a carefree teenager, school troubles, domestic problems, puberty, an exceptional father who occasionally crosses (during major and minor moments) his life, teenage love, his heart being broken and than the final step to adulthood. 12 Years interwoven with no visible indication in what time span it's happening at that time and this summarized in 165 minutes. Together with his sister Samantha (Lorelei Linklater), daughter of Richard Linklater and a teenager with an attitude, and his mother (Patricia Arquette), who won a gold medal in the Olympic discipline "choosing the wrong guys", a touching coming-of-age story unfolds itself. Afterwards you realize how volatile time is and how our life goes on with an irreversible pace.


Ellar Coltrane plays literally and figuratively the role of his life. The beginning was a little bit sluggish and lethargic. It seemed to leave him indifferent which made him act quite apathetic. But as he grows older, I appreciated his deep philosophical musings more and more. His argumentation while driving on the highway about humanity functioning in modern society as self-healing and reproducing robots, because the manufacturing of cyborgs would be too costly, I found funny but at the same time I realized that it was uncannily accurate and that there's actually a little truth in what he claims. Again something I could identify myself with. Lorelei Linklater grows into a rebellious and wayward teenager. Arquette's roundings expand as the years pass. The only one whose looks remain timeless, is that of Ethan Hawke. Although it feels as if he plays an ancillary character who pops up occasionally into the life of Mason, I found this the most beautiful role in "Boyhood" and for me the one who exerts the most influence on the development of the person Mason. A brilliant interpretation: serene, vulnerable and supportive. And maybe it's my imagination, but I thought Mason resembled more and more Hawke as he grows older. What a coincidence.


The final conclusion is that it's a brilliant concept with delightful characters who grow and unfold themselves as time progresses. So what's wrong with it than ? Absolutely nothing, except in the end it's just a dull affair. You can't say there are many startling things happening. Despite the chaotic periods Mason's mother is going through , you can't detect any real traumatic experiences. Every average family's life looks like this. And yet this film is praised to the skies. And that's because everyone sees something in it they can relate to and finally think something like "Hey, I also experienced it like that" or "Damn that happened to me also in that period". And that's the strength of "Boyhood". A mirror is held up in front of you and you'll come to one conclusion : Life is a concatenation of moments you need to enjoy fully, because there comes a time you'll realize that those moments have passed. And that's perfectly summarized by Mason's final sentence: "It's the constant moments, it's just ... it's like always right now".

The Collection
2012
Marcus Dunstan

“He will cut your balls off and feed them to you”


Are you a fan of "Saw" and other related torture movies, this will be your cup of tea. But if you were tired of the whole "Saw" saga after part three, you better skip "The Collection" because you can't call it very original. This sequel to "The Collector" (which I've never seen) begins impressive, has an anticipated open end and is terribly boring in the middle, with ridiculously improbable situations. It's never really exciting and ultimately it becomes a cat and mouse game in a big, abandoned hotel, full of deadly and insane booby traps and with rooms that look more surreal as time goes by. To make it somewhat entertaining, I recommend to get a scarf and hat and equip yourself with bells and flags, so that you can encourage the contestants as a real enthusiastic supporter.


Because of the short running time, there's no wasting of time at the beginning of the film. In a flash, we're informed that the city is attacked by a ruthless serial killer called "The Collector". We meet Elena (Emma Fitzpatrick) being towed along by some friends to an obscure secret nightclub. After a skirmish there with her boyfriend, she discovers a suitcase with Arkin (Josh Stewart) trapped in it. Arkin is a victim of the first film who survived and escaped his imprisonment. Only the nightmare starts back again here and short after you'll get to see the most hallucinatory massacre ever. I did something I rarely do. I re-watched that part twice in a row. Once this bloody part is over, you can say that you've watched the best part and from here on it's just a very long carnage. The creators of the film (especially the writer Patrick Melton, who is also responsible for SAW IV, V, VI and VII) paid more attention to the level of sadism than the story itself. You can easily guess what'll come next. Elena is kidnapped by "The Collector" and Arkin is recruited as a guide for a group of mercenaries to rescue her out of the hands of this sadist.


Putting this film in the same league as "Saw", is for the latter a little unworthy. The concept of "Saw" was of a very different nature and was put together somewhat subtler. I must admit that "Saw" impressed me. "Jigsaw" kidnapped people because he felt they deserved it, because of the sins they have committed in the past. The choice they had was to save themselves from their situation in a painful way or simply die. "The Collector" had no exact plan in mind in my opinion. He's simply a psychopath who transforms his victims into grotesque artworks and saves it in formaldehyde. Or he uses them as a favorite pastime and tortures them brutally. His identity is not revealed in this film. It remains a sinister stranger who occasionally puts on a mask and starts killing brutally.


It's totally absurd to talk about character development, because that's missing completely. First you have the seemingly invincible killer who has a built-in GPS system because he always appears at the right time and in the right place in this fairly large hotel. And next we have a bunch of mercenaries who will solve the problem. The fact that the one they are hunting just reshaped a whole gang of disco goers into ready-to-eat barbecue packets, apparently doesn't impress them and they enter unfamiliar terrain seemingly carefree. Their fate is also in hands of one person who knew where this lugubrious building was situated just by using clues he carved into his arm. I would clear off and leave the job to a whole army of soldiers.


There are also inexplicable moments in this film. The way they free themselves out of the metal cage is nonsense. And especially if you see how that person swings into action afterwards, as if it's hunky dory. Most serial killers in other slasher movies have a motive and a pattern. This "Collector" guy apparently doesn't have a clue about any plan and just goes on doing stuff. He kills, chops and cuts around, slices and assembles bodies, tortures and torments when he has time. He uses all kinds of instruments to achieve his goal (not like Michael Myers who invariably uses a butcher knife) and also he drugs a whole bunch of victims so they can be used as an army of zombies against intruders. And that's not all. He also has a collection of raging dogs and tarantulas. You see, there's enough variation.
Ultimately, it's just a mediocre film with a great deal of attention for the traps and the bloody effects of them. It's a tough film and the pace is very fast. So fast that you may have missed some slaughtering. Don't worry ! In the end you get a second chance to watch it again during the end credits. The end invites for a successor, but I'm sure I'm going to skip it.

Begin Again
2013
John Carney

"Are you really an A & R man? You look more like a homeless man."


"Begin Again" is a modern fairy tale in which individuals are about to make a new start in their life and (coincidentally) begin again : the start of a new career, a new relationship, a new image or simply a new personal life. The amount of films with people who are on the brink of disaster, in a desperate situation and then by a twist of fate take control again, are legion. It's the same in this with music filled feel-good movie. Only the chosen princess in this tale I personally think isn't such a success. Not a bad word about the acting skills of Keira Knightley, but the moment she starts laughing, I feel shivers going down my spine. And she laughs a lot in this film. The choice of Mark Ruffalo as the quarreling hit music producer and full time alcohol drinking future candidate clochard ,contrasts sharply with this. An endearing and beautiful rendition. Fortunately, he didn't turn green during a fit of rage.


The whole story starts with an intimate and fragile performance by Gretta (Keira Knightley) in a dingy pub. She has just broken with her boyfriend, the rising star Dave Kohl (Adam Levine) who couldn't resist the temptations of his stardom and leaves his artistic better half for a female producer. Gretta is a songwriter who puts fragments of text and music on paper once and a while, trying to channel her deeper feelings in poppy sounding romantic tunes. At the same time the producer Dan (Mark Ruffalo) tries to cope with his own personal problems. He has lost his magic touch of discovering new talent and starts drinking a lot. As a result he's being sacked by his partner and co-founder of the record label. By coincidence he sits at the bar of this pub and he becomes enchanted by the song. Surrounded by a disinterested audience, he's the only one who realizes the potential of Gretta's song. And that's the beginning of the fairy tale.


I've played in a band once and I was also fantasizing about the glory and fame. The attention, the innumerable people who listen to your music and know your song by heart, the number of fans who follow you unconditionally, the feelings you can produce within total strangers and the money we could earn with it. Unfortunately it remained a fantasy because we had two drawbacks: it wasn't exactly commercial music and we didn't live in the US, the country where your dreams can come true and where some poor guy can grow out into a mega-star. Dan hears Gretta's song for the first time and he's touched by the innocence and simplicity. He's the only one who can imagine how a full orchestra could support this with sophisticated arrangements and turn it into a huge hit. For me this was the most successful and imaginative scene. It demonstrates why he was a brilliant music producer. The empathy and the ability to project a simple piece of music to something grander and overwhelming. The music, in my opinion a rough mix of Suzan Vega and Birdy, isn't my favorite genre. But that didn't matter at all. It's a wonderful laid-back movie that makes you feel relaxed.


Unfortunately it's a film which progress is as obvious as that Easter Monday will fall on a Monday. As the dominoes begin to fall, you can predict what direction it's going and what the final outcome will be. The music career of Gretta goes as planned, the characters who lost each other somewhere reunite irrefutable and the decisions taken are as expected. No astonishing developments or unexpected endings. A simple film which gives you a good feeling and contains a positive message. But perhaps it's because my love for music is so big and I agree with the subtly hidden complaint against the music industry nowadays, that I appreciated this film. Today it's only the commercial aspect that counts and not the emotional value. Gretta made this already clear at the beginning of the film : "Sorry, what does beauty got to do with anything? I actually just think that music is about ears not eyes ".


I also admire Knightley who seemingly has sung the soundtrack by herself and she did this in a creditable way. She can, although she was out of tune a few times, still start a singing career in case Hollywood would turn its back on her. Also the supporting roles were exceptionally successful. James Corden as the helpful Steve who is musically talented, although his street performances were extremely bad. The ballad via voice mail was actually the musical highlight in this film. The endearing role played by Corden was brilliant. Hailee Steinfeld as Dan's daughter Violett, who's not satisfied with the attitude of her father, was spot on. Take a guess how that will work out ! Ceeloo Green as the savior Troublegum took care of the fun part. But mostly I was surprised by Adam Levine, front-man of Maroon 5 (Not that I knew him because it is not my type of music and I suppose it's reasonable commercial). The practical experience he gained in the music circuit was convenient I guess. I'm still wondering if the name Dave Kohl was a parody on that of the front-man of Foo Fighters. The combination of the singer with little acting experience and the actress with little singing experience was sublime. The only thing I'm sure of is that (and who has experience in sound recordings can confirm it) the recording of the demo will sound pretty lousy when you see what kind of amateurish material they used in a noisy metropolis like New York. For the rest, this was a sympathetic musical film with the versatile and colorful New York City as a setting.

The Physician
2014
Philipp Stölzl

Remember boy !
The more painful the treatment, the more they respect the Barber

"The Physician" is a beautiful, old-fashioned adventure film, situated in the dark ages with its poverty and unsanitary conditions. In those days the church still had some influence so it punished any scientific progress because these odious practices were against the will of God. And despite the terrible poverty, they were showing up in a flash in order to extort the last money those poor people had, as a compensation for some ritual they've performed. The same happened to Rob after the passing of his mother. In these dark times people died of an innocent appendicitis or pneumonia. Rob is abandoned to his fate but sees a chance to travel with an itinerant quack who performs surgery in a questionable manner and sells healing potions most likely manufactured from horse urine. When Rob is told that in the distant Middle East, a man named Ibn Sina teaches medicine and puts this knowledge into practice, his decision made. He leaves for the Middle East to be educated by this wise man. The only requirement is that he must appear as a Jew. This also had some consequences for his foreskin


A fascinating historical film made in Germany ("Der Medicus'). First I was surprised that this was a German film since it has the look and feel of a Hollywood movie. In retrospect it's also a bit logical. The book this film is based on and written by Noah Gordon, was not a success in the US, but all the more in Germany. It was also massively viewed in Germany and they made a mini TV series out of it. The rest of Europe unfortunately will only enjoy this wonderful film when it comes out on DVD. It's a successful film with a lot of attention paid to the sets, costumes, music and CGI. If you add the even brilliant performances to it, you finally end up with an admirable and excellent product. The 150 minutes are over before you know it, because you are sucked into the story in a way.


The performances were extraordinarily beautiful. Tom Payne as the inquisitive and innocent looking Rob, Stellan Skarsgard ("The Railway Man," "Kill your Darlings") as the itinerant quack who takes care of Rob and at the same time knows absolutely no compassion sometimes. I didn't recognize Emma Rigby immediately, even though I only just saw her at work in "Plastic". Her fake appearance in that movie (botox treatment most likely) was transformed miraculously into a more natural appearance. But what elevates this film to a higher level, is the casting of Ben Kingsley as the Persian philosopher who wants to pass his knowledge to motivated pupils and at the same time exhibits an unprecedented hunger for knowledge. A masterful performance and a realistic portrayal of Ibn Sina, the Muslim physician, philosopher, physicist and scientist who made important contributions to medicine and whose studies were respected in Europe for a long time. Apparently Kingsley likes playing the role of a physician or psychologist. He has the appropriate appearance and his charismatic personality is perfect for it. Just watch "Shutter Island" or "Stonehearst Asylum" and you'll see.


But also the overall appearance of the film looks grand and wonderful. From shabby, dark and especially dingy London to the oriental scenes in distant Persia and the Madrasa College. The costume department has done its utmost to display it as authentic as possible. How Philipp Stölzl and Jan Berger have shaped this film and managed to make a movie with Hollywood proportions, is admirable. The only drawback is that there are also some Hollywood cliches like the storyline about Rebecca and Rob. Fortunately they avoided to show epic grand battles and focused on Ibn Sina and the influence of religion in that time. The only thing that bothered me personally was the so-called gift Rob had. The timeless topics about health and religious fanaticism dominate this wonderful film. Some won't like the old-fashioned tone, but in the end I really enjoyed this medieval adventure film. A film set in an era when the Middle East was a source of knowledge and progress.

The Imitation Game
2014
Morten Tyldum

“Cryptography is the science of codes.
Like secret messages?
Not secret. That’s the brilliant part. Messages that anyone can see, but no one knows what they mean, unless you have the key.
How is that different from talking?
Talking?
When people talk to each other they never say what they mean. They say something else. And you’re supposed to just know what they mean. Only, I never do. So how is that different?
Alan, I have a funny feeling that you’re going to be very good at this.”


Looking back, the above-mentioned conversation between Alan Turing and his school friend Christopher Morcom, is for me the perfect summary of the fascinating life of the intellectual mathematician Turing. The phenomenon he faced throughout his whole life had to do with "decoding". From an early age, Alan had trouble dealing with his fellow men. It was for him in a way a kind of cryptogram how to act and react towards his fellow men. A brilliant mind who simply couldn't grasp simple human interactions. At a later stage he was the one who designed a forerunner of the current computer and who formed the basis of the principles of artificial intelligence, in order to crack the infamous Enigma cipher, which was used by the Germans during WWII and which combination changed every 24 hours. An almost impossible task to do for a human being. But thanks to the pioneering work of Polish scientists in this area it was made possible by him, by building one of the first self-correcting computers "The Bombe". Ultimately this would drastically change the course of WWII and shorten this dreadful period with 2 to 4 years. So millions of lives were spared in that way.


This magnificent biopic highlights three important episodes in the life of Turing: his school period in Sherborne where he obviously was the center of harassment's because of his odd behavior, the war period which took place mainly at Bletchley Park where he and some staff members built the innovative machine and the postwar period. The result is a clever interwoven story that jumps effortlessly from period to period. I'm not a huge fan of these flashbacks normally but the Norwegian director Morten Tyldum succeeds wonderfully in making three parallel stories without too much confusion.

Although most of the story takes place during the 2nd world war, it's not a typical war movie. So don't expect any heroic battle scenes. The emphasis is on the person Turing and his mental state that haunted him throughout his life. A hard, impatient, arrogant, narcissistic person who wasn't easy to work with. He had a profound distaste of explaining complicated theorems and he treated everyone in a derogatory way. Many of his traits appear autistic and point in the direction of Asperger syndrome.


What really impressed me in this film was the interpretation of Benedict Cumberbatch who impersonates the person Turing in a brilliant way. A realistic portrait in which the viewer is trying to decipher the riddle Turing. He managed to change your feelings regarding this genius again and again. From sympathy to irritation and than changing it into pity. One moment you passionately hate this bastard. The next moment you deeply admire him and you are outraged about the treatment this "war hero" underwent. A lack of appreciation for his impossible feat and the fact that it was only in 2009 one pleaded for a posthumous rehabilitation and the British government eventually offered its apologies. Although I also had a mathematical education and am working daily with computers, I must admit that I'd never heard of Alan Turing. This year there was a scene in "The Machine" I enjoyed, where a certain Vincent, also an A.I. expert, subjected certain software systems to a Turing test. Also a known procedure described in an article by Turing while working at the University of Manchester.


No doubt about it. This was one of the most interesting films of the last year with some masterful acting. Not only by Cumberbatch (and I put my money on him when it's about the Oscar), but also by Keira Knightley, who I usually dislike when she uses her exaggerated expressive smile again. Also the result of cracking the code and the taken subsequent actions, gave the story an extra dimension. There were some historical inaccuracies though : The machine never got the name "Christopher" (this was purely for increasing the drama content of the film), the impression one gets as if Turing was the initial designer and the fact that he wrote a letter to Churchill on his own. But despite these trivialities, this was a successful tribute to a war hero. Unfortunately you can't prove this but I'm sure that without the commitment of this person, my vernacular probably would be German.
Donnerwetter ....

The Stranger
2014
Guillermo Amoedo

"The Stranger" is a typical example of a film with an original approach to an already widely used subject, that initially creates a momentary excitement, which then however is nipped in the bud by a pace that claims some patience, dark settings (although in this case that's quite obviously) and mostly lousy renditions by some members of the cast. In the beginning I had the impression that this story took place somewhere in South America. Afterwards I was quite surprised when it turned out it was situated somewhere in Canada. The Chilean director Guillermo Amoedo sought most of his cast among the Chilean population. Hence the confusion. Besides, the sounding title "Eli Roth presents The Stranger" isn't a reason to get excited immediately. Just as in "Clown" his name is prominently mentioned on the cover. But this isn't an insurance for a high quality end result.


The main character Martin (Cristobal Tapia Montt) appears one evening at the door of a shabby house that's inhabited by Peter (Nicolas Duran) and his mother Monica (Alessandra Guerzoni), asking if they know where his ex-girlfriend is. The simple answer he gets, leads him to the local cemetery where he's looking sadly down at the grave of Ana (Lorenza Izzo). Moments later the local hooligan Caleb (Ariel Levy) and his mindless friends bump into him. Martin doesn't even bother to defend himself while these loafers brutally molest him. It looks like he's sick of life and he's actually left behind for dead. Caleb's father, Police Inspector De Luca (Luis Gnecco), tries to cover up the crime and hides the corpse. Peter, who witnessed the whole thing, takes Martin home to take care of him. Apparently it's not so obvious to kill this stranger and afterwards it seems that his blood, as he declared furiously, is contagious.


The only feeling I had after watching "The Stranger" was an unsatisfied one. The subject was inventive and had potential to make something interesting out of it, but that wasn't realized. The film is painfully slow and in terms of action it's not that impressive. The obvious theme of vampirism shines through the film even though it's not explicitly named. But the fact that Martin is in need of consuming blood and can't stand sunlight clearly points in that direction. His only goal is to get rid of similar people, including himself. Therefore there's this ever-present morbid, depressed and violent atmosphere around him. And then there is the phenomenon of healing blood which really distances this film from all the other movies with blood-sucking creatures of the night. But attempts to differentiate itself from the older movies where Dracula and associates flutter, are nullified because the most common clichés of this genre are still valid. For example, a sun cream with factor 100 is indispensable for Martin.


Cristobal Tapia Montt really was wonderful in his role. The constant inner struggle. The destructive attitude on the one hand and the role as martyr which he appropriates himself. At times I even thought he looked a little bit like Jake Gyllenhaal. Nicolas Duran's contribution was also acceptable on some level. Although I'm still impressed how quickly he managed to overcome his drug addiction. Furthermore, the rest was filled with the familiar, clichéd characters. But also there were some abominable interpretations. At times it seemed as if the dialogues were read directly from the script. Among other Alessandra Guerzoni made use of overacting in general. And Luis Gnecco appeared not to master the English language and it looked as if he was dubbed sometimes. Even Ariel Levy's performance wasn't that impressive from time to time. Although his appearance at the end was fairly successful.


"The Stranger" isn't exactly a masterpiece and has some flaws. Yet Amoedo succeeded in creating an eerie atmosphere with some horror moments and downright brutal, bloody fragments. This film brings nothing new in the familiar horror genre, but it's still worth the effort to give it a try. And although the ever-present darkness isn't exactly an advantage, ultimately this creates a dark and grim atmosphere.

The Collector is way better than The Collection, so give it a shot if you like horror.

Keep up the good work:)

Outcast
2014
Nick Powell

Cage can put this one on his "Senseless contribution to meaningless film that brings grist to the mill"-list, because this was a typical mainstream movie. It's been several weeks since I've seen it, and to be honest I can't remember much of it. That's usually a sign that it wasn't a very good film and failed to impress me after all. About Cage's performance we can be brief. As brief as the time he appeared in the film in an unconvincing way. Apparently Cage joined the club of action heroes who choose one soulless trashy movie after another just to collect some pocket money (with the exception of "Joe" I've heard). Even the fact of Anakin Skywalker waving dangerously with his sword in this adventure film, can't change the fact that the final result is disappointingly weak. Probably the pubescent teenage girls present in the audience will experience this as a plus point, but that's the only positive contribution I can think of.


The story begins with Gallain (Nicolas Cage) and Jacob (Hayden Christensen) as two fiery crusaders in the Middle East where they spend their time with cutting up a few Muslims into pieces. Jacob however, with an extremely modern haircut, passes a for Gallain sensitive border and the two eventually go their separate ways. I found it astonishing that they ended up in China. That must have been a very long walk. In this medieval China the king's son Shing (Andy On) can whistle for the throne since the dying king appointed his youngest son Zhao (Bill Su Jiahang) as his heir. Out of fear of revenge, the king sends Zhao together with his charming sister Lian (Liu Yifei) and a royal seal to a safer place. Don't be amazed, but on the way to their safe harbor, they meet Jacob, who now looks more like a premature hippie under the influence of opium, who takes them under his wing.


It looks a bit like what Viggo Mortensen's job was, while being on the road with those hobbits in "The Lord of The Rings". A heroic warrior who acts like a security guard for some innocent and vulnerable young people. And although I always admired Nicolas Cage a lot, this became nevertheless a tedious and very bad movie. Not only has the subject been used a zillion times, there's also a pile of cliches and an atrocious acting Cage. Ultimately, he's not the central figure in this film, although he stands explicitly in the foreground on the movie poster.

Obviously the Chinese princess would fall for Jacob and the small Zhao looking up to him as a super hero whose adventures he followed for years in some comic magazine, was also nothing new under the sun. This movie is not even an alternative to pass your time on a rainy Sunday. Closing your eyes and taking a nap, would be more satisfying. Terrible action scenes (too close and nauseating shaking images) are being followed by incomprehensible fragments. I still can't understand that an army diligently seeks for the two royal children and still can't recognize them when they go into a town before their eyes. And how Jacob could kill an opponent who's riding a horse by using a bow and arrow at a ridiculous far distance and knowing that he usually stumbles around completely drugged, is absolutely ridiculous.


Eventually only Jiahang, Yifei and On acted convincing enough. I asked myself what fashion statement Cage wanted to make by wearing that absurd woolly hat at the end. That was a complete mystery to me. But eventually it matched his entire role : ridiculous. Now I understand why the Chinese distributor Yunnan Film Group ceased the release of this movie a few hours before the screening in thousands of cinemas. It probably has something to do with the Chinese have learned from a young age that they can never lose their face.

The Aggression Scale
2012
Steven C. Miller

Aggression Scale : (noun) A psychological test measuring the frequency of overt aggressive behaviors that may result in physical or psychological injury to others.

Actually it was my intention to begin with a quote from Owen, the teenager who's at the core of this bloody home invasion, but this is impossible because he says not a single word throughout the film. Not a sound even. I was expecting a typical B-movie but as the movie progressed, I was pleasantly surprised. You can call it "Home Alone" for adults ("The Aggression Scale is like Home Alone on crack." I read somewhere) : bloody, vicious and sometimes straightforward explicitly violent. Compared with Owen, Kevin looks like a wimp. And the viciously tricks and booby traps that Owen constructs for his attackers, are worse and more deadly than those of Kevin.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_NPbem-2Ax...1-57_cap01.jpg

Essentially the story isn't that extraordinary. A certain Bellavance (Ray Wise) just left prison and wants to leave to a safer place together with his son. The only problem is that his hard-earned money is stolen. Four loyal gang members are instructed to find the money. And this task is tackled in a simple way: you take a list of all people who had something to do with it and you start off from the top of this list. Those who can't answer the questions, are unceremoniously provided with some fresh ventilation holes. And that's the first image you get to see in "The Aggression Scale". Immediately a bluntly and senseless slaughtering. The victim didn't even get the time to answer the question anyway. But it had effect, this "in-your-face" violence. I must admit I immediately sat straight after that moment. A real attention grabber that clarifies which direction it'll go.


What Lloyd (Dana Ashbrook) and his companions weren't expecting, was the presence of the young scion Owen (Ryan Hartwig) of the family Rutledge, which was next on the list. This silent boy carries a fairly destructive secret with him. The Rutledge family has just moved into their new home where they wanted to start a brand new life. Lauren (Fabianne Therese) isn't happy about this course of events and clearly shows that. She doesn't feel like babysitting the weirdo Owen in this reconstituted family. However, she doesn't realize that she should be happy that this youngster stands at her side.


Clearly it's a low-budget film, but one that was enormously appreciated by me. A fast-paced aggressive film that keeps your attention all the way. The continuous flow of violent scenes is perfectly dosed and the thoughtful actions of Owen make it interesting. Although he sometimes looked like a youthful MacGyver who used farfetched methods which were successful because of the necessary amount of luck and coincidence. Also the performances can be praised. Ray Wise, who of course became known as Leland Palmer in "Twin Peaks", his contribution wasn't extensive. But the moments he came into the picture, he managed to portray a ruthless gangster.




There are several movies that show how someone can collapse psychologically and starts to react extremely aggressive. "The Aggressive Scale" however, shows how far one can go in his aggressiveness. It's a disturbing thought that someone is unable to control his aggressiveness without medication and constantly threatens others. But it's a starting point that's suitable to weave a fascinating concept around. The best hidden item in this film was the way Owen and Lauren grew together. They began as two strangers who interacted apathetically with each other and end up as a kind of Bonnie and Clyde. Inseparable and deadly vengeful.

Plastic
2014
Julian Gilbey

“How it started shouldn't matter.
How things end, that's what's important.”

"Plastic". You could call it a sort of "Ocean's Eleven" with some whippersnappers. Apparently it's based on true facts again. Yet it all seems pretty unlikely that a few pubescent boys can set up such a sophisticated system to commit fraud, involving extortion, hacking and setting up an ingenious plan with among other things a private jet and some cheap hired hostesses. There could be some truth in it but most likely the complete story is filled with exaggerated rumors and unverifiable facts so that the whole becomes a grotesque myth. Throw together a bunch of flashy-looking teenagers who resemble the cast of the "Beverly Hills 90210" series (except that the 90210 gang didn't commit credit fraud since their mommies and daddies had sufficient cash), a portion of forced humor, some terrible renditions with embarrassing dialogues, some minimal action and a childish "Mission Imposible" scenario, and you have a perfect summary of "Plastic".


The four "Robin Hood" -like youngsters, who enjoy being crooks besides their student life, are Sam (Ed Speleers), Fordy (Will Poulter), Yatesey (Alfie Allen) and Rafa (Dabastian De Souza). Sam is the founder of the group and the one with the biggest brains. Fordy is the co-founder of the enterprise and is a genius when it comes to computers and hacking someones mailbox.

Yatesey is the most unsympathetic member who actually causes trouble constantly. You'll probably start hating him from the outset which is mostly required in these kind of films. And Rafa is the schmuck of the gang who constantly goes about looking dazed and apparently has no idea what's going on. His task is limited in the beginning to copying credit cards at some gas station (later his role is of considerably greater importance). However, it goes wrong when they con a mendacious and dangerous Polish gangster and they are compelled to come up with a considerable sum of money in a short term. After this, the story becomes incredibly unlikely.


With none of the characters I had an affinity. The start was far from bad and it even appeared to become fascinating. The only thing I wondered in the beginning was whether these rascals had any relatives, what motivated them to lead this life of crime and how the hell could they keep clear of the authorities after seeing the pile of stolen credit cards. As the film progressed their interactions with each other and the way they communicated, became terribly innervating. The accumulation of clichés, coincidences and the used archetypes was a bit too much. The stunningly Frankie (Emma Rigby), who works at a credit card company of course, is required material to bring the beauty ideal to a higher level. It's evident she appears, during their stay in Miami, in a super sexy swimsuit that leaves nothing to the imagination. The moment she strolls along the beach together with the four rascals, I got spontaneous flashbacks of "Baywatch". The fierce gangsters are a cliche image of the Eastern European gangster : the well known dialect, total indifference when it comes to liquidations and an example of total stupidity during the real confrontation.


When the big scam began, it became downright ridiculous. The outcome was extremely predictable. And the denouement with the most laughable shootout ever seen, was too ridiculous for words. At that time, I was categorically sure you should take that "based on a true story" expression with a huge grain of salt. Was there anything positive about this movie ? Yes there was ! The interpretation by Graham McTavish as the arrogant jeweler and smarty-pants (and again it's unlikely someone would take such a decision) was entertaining. And I appreciate Will Poulter ("We're the Millers" and "The Maze Runner") more and more as an actor. But in the end I thought it was just an artificial product: a plastic film, as it were ....

Honour
2014
Shan Khan

“Two people love each other, why can't people be happy for them?
He's Punjabi, Mona.
He's Muslim, Adel.
Yeah, but that ain't how it works.”

Occasionally you watch a movie with a rarely used (or abused) topic. No alien creatures threatening to destroy humanity, not another childish story about a post-apocalyptic world with a youngster as a liberator, not again cheap humor in a silly comedy with overstressed eager beaver, not an average action story with muscled guys or a horror with once again an evil spirit being driven out by using medieval rituals to the place where it came from. "Honour" is about honor killings.


Despite our modern society this ancient use is still applicable in some cultures. Especially in the Muslim communities they sometimes fall back on this custom. Mostly the targeted persons are those who ashamed their family and, believe it or not, these mad acts are justified by certain laws of Islam. In some countries the majority of perpetrators go unpunished like in Pakistan. It's a despicable thought that there are hundreds of women being killed each year because they have violated the family honor. And that's the starting point of this film.


"Honour" is a gray and depressing impression of the beautiful Mona (Aiysha Heart) whose life enters a gruesome cycle of violence after she began an affair with a Punjabi and therefore experiences the wrath of her primal conservative mother (Harvey Virdi). Mona's mother (the similaritywith the nasty witch from Hansel and Gretel is striking) and brother Kasim (Faraz Ayub) first try to take the law into their own hands. This goes wrong (in an incomprehensible way) and they hire a bounty hunter (Paddy Considine) to liquidate Mona.


You can call the performances of the actress Aiysha Hart and the other actors commendable. Persuasive and dedicated. A cast that does its utmost to realize a credible and realistic story. Considine plays a sublime character role. You can see the duality in his character evolving. From a cold blooded, racist assassin into a true understanding person who apparently still has a bit of humanity inside him. Despite these superb performances, the film still fails on several points. Apparently Shan Khan couldn't really decide whether it should be a didactic documentary or a thriller. It's not a documentary because the background of the problem is pretty vaguely presented and there's hardly any explanation. For a thriller, there has been as much as no suspense. Also, the storyline was pretty confusing because of the constant use of time jumps and constantly viewing the same situation from a different viewpoint. The whole movie was like a Spaghetti Bolognaise: tasteful with a clew of storylines.


Despite being a low-budget film, "Honour" partly succeeded to convince. It throws some light on a mysterious and incomprehensible to our standards culture, where barbaric practices are still honored. All in all I thought it was a good movie and a must see, if only to conclude that unfortunately such practices are still part of our modern society. And despite the dark atmosphere, this film also shows a gentle side so there remains still a bit of hope. Technically, I thought the executed idea of the film being a loop, not unkind and creative.

The Equalizer
2014
Antione Fuqua

“When you pray for rain, you gotta deal with the mud too.”

Can you remember Denzel Washington's performance in "The Book of Eli" ? His coolness and calmness. The grimness. The power he has to move mountains. Approaching his target confidently , his inner tranquility taking over and with extreme precision dealing with his opponents. Shrewdly assimilating the situation, let it sink in for a moment and than act fast accurately. Masterfully, breathtaking to watch and immensely exciting. He also demonstrates these qualities in "The Equalizer". The only difference is that he's not completely blind here.


At first sight Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) looks like an ordinary, well-organized man who has an normal job in a hardware store. Apparently he was one of the Pips performing with Gladys Knight in the distant past (according to the plausible explanation of Robert who as a bonus demonstrates a few sultry dance moves as illustration). The fact he has nothing to do with the Pips, quickly becomes obvious. His true identity is not explained completely in detail. It's evident he had a career as a sort of Special Task Force member which he turned his back on and now runs a meticulously organized and strictly simple life. A sober furnished room with precisely folded bed sheets, a sink that looks spick and span and a daily routine going to a coffee shop with a tea bag tucked in his shirt after a consumed supper and a book in his possession which he puts on the table on the same exact place everytime. He himself is a walking "Wikipedia" who comes up with an appropriate philosophical quote from time to time. So, it's a militaristic ordered life.


But he also has skills to deal with injustices. It's as if he gives the criminals of this world, who placed themselves above the ordinary people and act as untouchable individuals who manipulate defenseless civilians, a taste of their own medicine and knock them off their pedestals. A kind of liquidator. Similarly when the face of Teri (Chloë Grace Moretz), a young hooker Robert met in the coffee shop, is being remodelled by her pimp Slavi (David Meunier) (pimped as it were) after which she ends up in the hospital.

When Robert wants to straighten out the situation (by offering Slavi a substantial sum of money, which the Russian of course declines) we finally get what we were waiting for after 30 minutes : hardcore action in slow motion with a with precision hitting Washington wiping out a complete Russian gang in about 19 seconds. And apologizing afterwards for it. A beautiful scene with a true avenging angel playing the starring role ! The only drawback is that he has liquidated an important part of the Russian mafia. And of course they are not going to start a Cossack dance. On the contrary. They send Teddy (Marton Csokas), a violent character without emotion and also with deadly skills. He looks after the affairs of a certain Vladimir Pushkin (Vladimir Kulich). A fearsome opponent for McCall with similar qualities.


That things aren't really believable and the same old clichés are used again, I take that for granted. Washington can set himself as a one-man army and dismantle a Russian gangster mob as a Schwarzenegger, whereby there's slow motion footage and rousing music. Also the usual characteristics of a revenge movie aren't eschewed : the simple way of getting rid of a rather well-organized criminal group, explosions in the background (and of course there's no looking back), again members of the mob who are too dumb for words and are all horrible lousy shooters who'd miss an African elephant even while aiming at it from a meter away and the well-known climax in the end with usage of all available attributes. You know a cliché, you got it. And that the Russians are back, merely has to do with the fact that this is allowed again on an international level. As soon as North Korea stops rocking the boat whenever their country is used in a movie and starts sending threats to certain countries, you can be sure there will be Korean casualties again in future action movies.


Washington is the most suitable man for this part. Just think of the character Joyhn Creasy in "Man on Fire" who leaves a trail of destruction in Mexico city while looking for Lupita. Also the same coolness and determination. He plays those roles with a certain flair, as if they were written specifically for him. His famous "Denzel" -characteristics he uses in each film : the quiet gaze, his typical smile and the icy one-liners. I must admit, I'm a Washington fan. His mutation of a cheerful, helpful and humorous average citizen into an avenger of the top shelf who exhibits sadistic features, is magnificent. And despite her young age, Chloë Grace Moretz shows a lot of maturity. The makeup probably helped with this, but still it's an excellent interpretation by this young talent. The rest of the cast really looks like a bunch of terrifying mobsters with their upper bodies covered by tattoos, their corrupt spirit and their stone-hard indifference.


Despite the long playtime and the slow storyline, I never felt bored. This action packed revenge movie was over before I knew it. Of course the content is a bit shallow and afterwards you start wondering why the heck there isn't a global group of such figures as McCall who hunt down organizations worldwide and liquidate them with an arsenal of nail guns. You do get the impression that McCall is a kind of super hero with human vulnerability and that it's just an intense action movie with some mindless hulks. But it was fun and a hell of a rollercoaster ride ...

Extraterrestrial
2014
Colin Minihan

It's a basic simple agreement with one cardinal rule: Do not engage.
And you, you engaged.
What do you mean?
Sweetheart, you shot one of them. Broke the treaty. Now they're out for blood.


What happens if you put a bullet in the body of a typical alien ? Yes, you get a kind of pissed E.T. that wants revenge because you have breached a contract. Believe it or not, but after the incident in Roswell, the US government made a pact with the Martians (or whatever other planet they come from). In that way our globe is kept from total destruction. In exchange, these Dr. Josef Mengele-lookalike creatures may abduct from time to time some earthlings so they can use them as guinea pigs during certain experiments. Ultimately it's a kind of "Dark Skies meets Friday the 13th." A typical Sci-fi slasher film with superficial acting, some gore moments and sometimes inanimate SEs (Especially the kidnapping of victims doesn't look that spectacular). But in the end the tone and mood of the film changes completely and you even feel like being aboard of the U.S.C.S.S. Nostromo.


April (Brittany Allen), Kyle (Freddie Stroma) and some mutual friends are the ones that have to go through this confrontation. Oh yeah, the whole thing is set in a cabin somewhere in a godforsaken place (where recently a phone booth was completely sucked up into the air, along with a hysterical woman who was hiding in it). I wouldn't recommend anyone to book a vacation in a cabin somewhere in the woods, because the misery you can encounter there, as Hollywood tries to show us, is terrifying.

Of course you get that terrible Hollywood cliché of having the usual annoying brat in between those teens. This time it's Seth who got on my nerves from the outset. The treatment he gets in the end was satisfying enough and even made me smile. Any way, these party animals witness a strange crash in the woods, while bickering like little kids on the porch. And who do you think is so smart to go and investigate? Of course, these by alcohol intoxicated nitwits. Probably they wanted to make some selfies at the scene, so they could have their "five minutes of fame". It turns out to be a crashed flying saucer (everyone immediately gets sober).


Despite the sometimes extremely poor dialogues and the accumulation of all possible known ingredients from other SF's and horrors, it was still a highly entertaining film that had some tension, some well-timed (but oh so predictable) scares and a menacing, dark atmosphere. Brittany Allen managed to give a successful interpretation of the with feelings struggling city girl, who emerged into a fierce fighter who tries to survive. The fact that she's surrounded by some stupid idiots, is ofcourse a reason why her personality stands out . The most amusing roles were played by Gil Bellows (Sheriff Murphy) and Michael Ironside (Travis). The last one I couldn't place immediately, but he looked familiar. Until I spontaneously started to shout "Jester's dead. Yeehaw, Jester's Dead". The ultra cool flight instructor from "Top Gun" was transformed into some crazy Vietnam vet who cultivated marijuana on a closed area and meanwhile kept an eye on the universe. Unfortunately, his contribution is fairly limited. Bellows (the rock'n'roll rebel Tommy from "The Shawshank Redemption") plays the tough sheriff who maintains order with an iron fist and is indirectly involved in the whole story of the suddenly emerging space creatures who look like anorexics. The way it turns out for him, was surprising and funny at the same time.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BNYap_OMut...estrial_07.jpg

The twists and turns in the story are sometimes unexpected and ensure that it continues to fascinate. As I mentioned earlier, the final part of this movie feels like you've arrived in a completely different film. Only the end was pretty abrupt and unsatisfying. But in general you can assume that the gore horror sections combined with the rather exciting atmosphere and sudden twists, make sure that this is a fast-paced and fun-filled film that provides momentary entertainment. A film that is composed of several layers: a violent horror flick with intense human suffering and sorrow, dislocated families, a struggle for survival, some youngsters struggling in their relationships with each other and at the same time you can feel the humor lurking throughout this motion picture. Despite its limited budget, the camera work is sometimes admirable and some CGI's are masterfully handled. Don't expect for once original created aliens. They still look the same as they were portrayed on a "Asimov's SF Adventure Magazine" : lengthy basketball players, ultra thin with an egg-shaped head with black holes as eyes and as far as I could see I assume their development of the clothing industry is still in its infancy. And as a climax you get the anal scene which looks gruesome and horrible, but at the same time it's hilarious as hell. In other words I appreciated the entertainment value of this flick ...

Horns
2013
Alexandre Aja

“How about you guys beat the **** out of each other and the winner gets an exclusive interview with me?”

I must admit that I admire Daniel Radcliffe at this moment. He does his utmost best to shake off the mark of "Harry Potter". After years waving around with a magic wand as an apprentice, he aimed his attention to very different projects, soundly deviating from what we are used of him. "The woman in black" was a box-office hit but still had the same atmosphere as his previous work : dark, macabre and it took place in a scary, old mansion (A kind of tiny Hogwarts). "Kill your Darlings" is a totally different category. A philosophical tinted film about revolutionary poets and writers and where Radcliffe probably had to browse intensely through some manuals about homosexuality. And then there is "Horns". A religiously tinged horror with a hefty dose of humor as additive. However, all this can't hide the fact that the basis of the film is a pure romantic story about embracing love and persuasion to undermine this because fate has decided otherwise.


Add to this a sort of detective story, an old-fashioned revenge motif and a whodunit theme, and you'll soon conclude that this is a melting pot of different genres. At one point I didn't know whether I had to watch it in a relaxing way or in a tense way. Some humorous parts were just attempts to be funny, while the gore horror-like scenes were sometimes laughable. I also thought the motive to saddle Ig with a pair of oversized horns, was rather unclear. Was it because he had to undergo the wrath of God after vandalizing some religious symbols? Or was it a symbolic sign for the demons that lingered inside him ? Or was it Satan himself who granted him the opportunity of a demonic force so he could track down the perpetrator ?


The original story was written by Joe Hill (son of Stephen King), and tells the tale of Ig Perrish (Daniel Radcliffe), who is accused of murdering his girlfriend Merrin (June Temple). Despite the fact that he keeps saying he's innocent, he is treated as a pariah by his hometown and is continuously chased by a gang of paparazzi. Until one day he wakes up with a pair of horns on his forehead.


The weird thing is that people spontaneously confess their deepest secrets and obsessions whenever they are near Ig. This leads to some hilarious scenes like visiting the doctor, the gang of journalists, the patrolling police officers or the scene in the local pub. And always you'll see a bewildered Radcliffe who doesn't understand what's going on. Ok, this was fun at the beginning, but after a few times applying this trick, it gets boring. Ultimately, only Ig's brother and his friend Lee continue to support him. Lee is a lawyer and he helps the heavy drinking Ig in a legal way. His brother Terry dwells mostly higher spheres because of the massive use of drugs, but ultimately he's the only one of the family that still believes in the innocence of Ig.


Radcliffe pulls out all the stops to bring the figure Ig as credible as possible. It's his merit that you feel sympathy for this man who stands at the edge looking into the abyss. A desperate victim who by his frantic attempt to apprehend the offender, degenerates into a cruel demonic character with a bunch of snakes as companionship. The transformation Radcliffe undergoes towards the end is wonderful to see. But despite the weathered look and stubble of an alcoholic, Radcliffe continues to look like a teenager. Only Temple can still convince as the charming childhood love of Ig who's also fighting her own demons. The rest of the cast has little impact or plays merely a supporting role. The denouement is a mix of fantasy and horror elements. Apart from a few gore fragments, it's a typical story of which one could make a perfect episode for "Tales of the Crypt." In terms of entertainment, it's quite successful, but it's not of a real high level. A demonic comedy one does not really know which direction it wants to go.

The Living
2014
Jack Bryan

What I do isn’t about the people that die.
It's about the people that are left alive.
They get the short end of the stick, as far as I'm concerned.

"The Living" is a basic revenge film in which the reprisal turns out quite differently than initially intended. A social drama about domestic violence and alcoholism, although I started wondering after a while how critical this alcohol problem was. The evolution to this violent abuse wasn't discussed. How could it come to this? Were there already signs of an oncoming problem? And were there cases of domestic violence already in the past? You're kept in the dark when it comes to these relevant considerations.


The first image, accompanied by music from The de Luca Brothers, is that of some empty beer bottles scattered around on the ground and an unconscious Teddy (Fran Kranz), who apparently is sleeping it off. Upon awakening he finds out he has a bloody hand and his wedding ring is missing, after which he becomes aware something terrible happened the previous night. The fact that his young wife Molly (Jocelin Donahue) is no longer present in the house, confirms his suspicion. Molly has fled to her parents' home where her mother Angela (Joelle Carter) and brother Gordon (Kenny Wormald) still live. When Teddy arrives there and Molly returns with him despite everything that happened, Angela threatens to use her shotgun and shoot Teddy. Simultaneously she's also furious about Gordon defending his sister in a lax way. Pissed off about what happened to his sister, Gordon takes the advice of a workmate (who knows someone who also knows someone else who could teach a person a lesson), and he goes looking for this person to solve the problem once and for all.


Unfortunately this is, despite some brilliant performances, a fairly banal story with a predictable storyline and no surprising conclusion. The whole film actually just shows the emotional relationship between a few people. First, the fragile and broken relationship between Molly and Teddy. Molly makes it clear to Teddy that he has to do everything to make up for the incurred suffering. What bothered me in this part of the story, was twofold. Teddy doesn't really resemble a typical alcoholic who tends to use violence against his wife. He looks remarkably fresh after an evening of heavy drinking (with a solid blackout as a result) and seemingly he doesn't have problems with staying away from booze. And Molly didn't need much time to forgive him again. Teddy didn't have to pay enormously for his actions. But I'm convinced this is most common in this kind of situations.


The second relationship arising in this film is that between the timid, uncertain Gordon and Howard (Chris Mulkey), the psychopathic killer who isn't afraid of murdering someone for a few dollars. This subtle interplay between these two opposites was the most fascinating of the whole movie. Magisterial acted by both. The realization that slowly grows to Gordon that he may have took the wrong decision. Howard is someone who is straightforward and clearly takes matters in hand to finalize it. There's a key moment in a restaurant where I thought the film was going to escalate into a spiral of violence. But to my surprise it remained to that single moment and the impact was limited to the fact that Gordon was more uncertain and scared to dead of Howard. Mulkey is brilliant as the crazy killer. Top performance.


But as I mentioned earlier, these superb performances can't cover up that the essential substance of this film is kind of feeble. A succession of obvious events and a simple story with no undue risks taken. Domestic violence is usually a complex psychological story. In "The Living" this is elaborated rather simplistic. Even the injuries Molly had after the quarrel, didn't exactly look realistic (it was more a result of a makeup party that got out of hand). Thanks to the charismatic Mulkey, this film was worth to watch.

Haunt
2014
Mac Carter

“So you want to hear a ghost story?
Well, every ghost story begins with a house... and a tragedy.
And so we begin with mine.”

The beginning really feels creepy. The rest of the film looks typical. Just another haunted-house topic with a whole range of already used elements from similar films. For the real horror fanatics it's nothing new or surprising. Expect creaking doors, manifesting entities , scary sounds behind every door and in every corner, looming shadows and sudden scares. This film contains them all and therefore looks like a hodgepodge of already used ideas. Except for that impression-making start wherein an original device is proposed : an old-fashioned looking device composed of transistors and radio lamps that can be used to communicate with the deceased. The tormented and desperate person who wants to use it to get in touch with his children, soon will experience the consequences. They are less pleasant than he had expected.


The Asher family moves into an old house of which there are rumors that it's haunted. The Morello family who lived there previously, was decimated cruelly. The only survivor was the matriarch Janet Morello (Jacki Weaver) who shows up while the Ashers are moving in, saying that she forgot to take something with her. During her brief visit she talks to Evan (Harrison Gilbertson), the son of the family Asher, telling him that her son died when he was Evan's age and that the attic was his bedroom. The moment Evan meets the rebellious teenage girl Sam (Liana Liberato) during a nighttime walk, a close friendship grows in between them. Before he realizes it, Sam snuggles into his bed at night. After a while they start to experiment with the strange device that they found (the one you saw in the opening scene) in a side room in the attic (actually Sam knew it was there anyway). A dangerous game that opens the door for not so friendly ghosts.


Ghost stories with an old, possessed house as a central subject, is an eagerly used topic in the horror genre. Think of "The Conjuring", "The Woman in Black", "The Amityville Horror" or "Poltergeist" and you know what to expect. The old clichés aren't shunned. Everytime there's an appearance, lights start to flicker again (in the same way as you saw in "Deliver us from Evil") There's even an entity that looks as if it came straight out of the movie "The Ring". And events from the past are shown in a creepy way in black and white. Unfortunately there are also the ridiculous-looking clichés. Like the fact that the new family happens to have the same composition of family members as the previous unfortunate family. Despite terrifying apparitions and confrontations, everyone just continues as if this is the most normal thing in the world. Even worrying gibberish of the youngest daughter ("If there’s really a ghost in Evan's room, l think he should make friends with it.") doesn't bother anyone. And of course at that time the parents leave the entire household behind, so they can visit a few colleagues.


Despite the obvious events, apparitions and paranormal states, I was still a bit surprised by the final denouement. Visually and in terms of atmosphere they could have created a really eerie and creepy film. The ghost part isn't so bad because they are surely scary at times. But the storyline is certainly not that exciting. And the performances are pretty one-dimensional. Parents are more absent than present, the older daughter was totally unnecessary and the younger sister lived in her own world. Gilbertson and Liberato formed a sympathetic couple but Gilbertson's naivety is hugely irritating. I enjoy an old-fashioned ghost story once and a while. Such a film that gives you the chills at times. The only chills I got while watching "Haunt", were those of the cold because of an open window in the middle of the night.

Residue
2015
Alex Garcia Lopez

“Since the explosion, since the construction of the Quarantine Zone, my photographs are different.
We're different.
Is it despair?
Confusion?
Rage?
Fear?
Everything's changed.
Maybe forever.”

Not knowing what was waiting for me and whether it was worth to watch this alleged horror / mystery (the content seemed interesting to me though), this film visually impressed me afterwards. At the end credits, I was somewhat irritated because the ending made no sense at all and left me with a lot of question marks. Ultimately it was a huge open ending with everything still as mysterious and unexplained as in the beginning. Afterwards I found out that this was a pilot for a brand new television series. What a disappointment ! As a fervent opponent of anything that even resembles a serial, the further course of this nevertheless very intriguing story will be completely unknown to me. However, I am sure that by the third season everything will be very confusing and complicated, because the writers are completely lost and are forced to invent new storylines. That's nothing for me.


The whole story revolves around a massive explosion that occurred in an underground dancing somewhere in futuristic London. According to the government chemicals are released, which leads to evacuating part of the population and a perimeter is established around the disaster area. Jennifer (Natalia Tena) and Jonas (Iwan Rheon) witness this explosion and gradually see their part of the city mutate into an area with military control. Jennifer is a photographer who starts to make photos of local residents after the incident and who discovers that these individuals experience a personality change. They get suicidal and turn out to be downright murderous. Jonas is someone who works for the organization who have closed the area in question (all the buildings in this area are covered with plastic, which creates some surreal images) and gradually he becomes aware that there is more to it than an explosion. And finally there is also Levi (Jamie Draven), a police detective whose daughter died in this explosion.


"Residue" is a fairly depressing film. Not only because of the futuristic story, but also because of the atmosphere and the used color palette. Everything looks bleak, gray and with no future. In retrospect I understood why the film was so slow without really shocking or relevant incidents. That's of course because this is just a long intro to a multiple seasons full of episodes. Only the artistic image fragments are momentary attention grabbers. For the most part it's just observing the main characters wandering around and looking for answers to their questions. After that there's something paranormal coming up. This makes it a little more interesting. So, are you a TV show freak, then I think this one is worth to watch. Instead, I'll stick with my addiction to caffeine and nicotine ... and I'll still eschew the "soapine" for the moment!

Big Game
2014
Jalmari Helander

"Not political, not religious. He is just a certified grade-A psychopath."

I thought "Why the hell not ?" after seeing the poster of "Big Game". An adventure film, clearly aimed at a younger audience, with Air Force One crashing down somewhere in a Finnish forest and with the US president trying to saving himself with the help of a Finnish boy who just happens to undergo a local ritual so he can prove himself to the male population. And after I saw that Samuel L. Jackson also took part in this movie as the missing president, I didn't hesitate for a second. It's true that Jackson played some minor roles before this ("Oldboy", "Reasonable Doubt" and "Robocop"), yet I was pleasantly surprised by his last performance in "Kingsman: The secret service". So I went on the assumption that this was going to be a likeable youth film, full of unabashed and not too far-fetched action.


Boy oh boy. I didn't expect this to be such a crappy movie full of improbabilities, ridiculous situations and coincidences. Admittedly, it's indeed aiming for a younger audience, filled with teenage boys, who can have nice dreams that same night after watching such a film and imagine themselves acting as such a hero. But I'm convinced that most of them will shake their heads out of disapproval, while wondering if the makers of this film actually were convinced that they are really so naive.


First lets start with the positive aspects. The scenery is matchless and breathtaking beautiful. I had no idea that Finland looked like that and I was tempted immediately to choose this country as a destination for my next holiday. Onni Tommila, a youthful Finnish actor, performed properly and does his job as the Finnish guide Oskari remarkably well. The entire film is clearly a homage to earlier films with youthful heroism as a central theme. It's a kind of film like "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" in which Short Round plays a prominent role or a typical Spielberg film like "Empire of the Sun". It brings back the nostalgia of fathers going to the cinema with their son to enjoy a cool film for guys. A prerequisite for such films is that the youthful contribution should smoothly transcend the ingenuity of the adults. In other words, the adults are presented as utter fools.


What bothered me the most about this movie, were the totally absurd situations that arose. I admit, when you look at it from the perspective of a young person and you don't take it too serious, it comes across as an entertaining movie. A sort of "Home Alone" in a forest, where you're always a bit smarter and faster than the bad guys. But there are limits. Firstly I would like to purchase the brand of freezer they used here, because I think this hightech-wonder-equipment is indestructible. Swinging under a helicopter, mowing through the woods, tumbling from a mountain, splashing into a lake and afterwards popping up out of the water like a purebred Russian submarine. And this "undamaged" ! Now that's what I call solid quality. But beware ! Make sure you don't end up inside this miracle appliance, because apparently it can't be opened from the inside. The number of accidental meetings is huge. Coincidentally, the probe with the POTUS is landing where Oskari made his camp. The freezer pops out of the water where Air Force One incidentally crashed. And you just need to follow a suspicious helicopter on satelite, and you end up looking at POTUS. The criminal Hazar (Mehmet Kurtulus) apparently isn't such a hot-shot criminal afterall, because he doesn't even know how to load an automatic rifle. And the way the satellite images are used in the Pentagon to follow the president, is just hilarious.


I admit, It shouldn't always be that serious and occasionally a lightly youth film is also welcome, but there are limits to follies and ridiculous situations. As a boy I'd fall for this blindly. But as an adult, who started watching this film unprepared, it gradually began to annoy me more and more because of the series of stupidities. The final image full of patriotism and heroism ultimately, was a bit too much for me.

You gotta cock it, Motherf …. Oops.

Final Girl
2015
Tyler Shields

“Are you guys an a cappella group?
Something like that.
Naw, we don't sing together.
You should. “

After reading the content of "Final Girl", you would expect a "I spit on your grave" -stylish revenge film in which a young woman teaches a group of young teens, who developed a rather morbid hobby during the weekends, a lesson. In hindsight, you can say it's at least disappointing. The reprisals are quite soft, lacking any kind of excitement. The whole movie sometimes has a cartoonish 60's look with some absurd scenes which sometimes even reminded me of "A Clockwork Orange" (not in terms of story but pure when it's about the mood).


I surely would recommend anyone to give this movie a chance, just because of the presence of Abigail Breslin. What a ravishing appearance, this young lady. A natural beauty provided with a fragile appearance and a pale face of an angel. You wouldn't immediately think that she's a trained killing machine without conscience. And that's also my first remark. She wasn't really convincing as such. She didn't seem to be really invincible during the confrontations. It's an excellent actress beyond dispute. I saw her the first time in "Wicked blood" and I was pleasantly surprised. She made me think of Saoirse Ronan at that moment. The same innocent look, determination and overwhelming calmness. However, I am convinced that Ronan would perhaps have been a better choice here. Not that there's anything wrong with the acting of Breslin. She demonstrates that also in "Maggie" afterwards (also with a pale face of an angel. But in "Maggie" there's another cause).


The biggest advantage of this film is the short playing time. I guess this is caused by the simple story. In only 15 minutes you'll get the full story already served. First, the brief conversation that the mysterious Wes Bentley has with the very young Veronica where he tells her that her parents are no longer alive and that he wants to train her to perform special tasks. Then we see something that should resemble a brief overview of that education. And finally the gang of tastefully dressed guys who lure an innocent blonde. Actually, this is the whole story in a nutshell and how it'll continue is rather obvious and predictable.


If it was the intention to make a stylistic slasher out of it, the creators of this film certainly succeeded in that. Some pieces look as if you're watching some dramatic play. Are you expecting a slasher like "You're next" then I recommend you watch that one instead, because the ultimate retaliations are quite austere and bloodless. Even avid supporters of "The Sound of Music" can watch this film without risking to faint. And the lack of background information isn't exactly a plus. A bit of explanation about the mysterious death of Veronica's parents, the origin of the unknown teacher and the reason for the bizarre behavior of the four teenagers, would have been a useful contribution.


Besides the outstanding performances of Breslin and Bentley (and Logan Huffman as the pretty crazy looking figure Danny) this was still a mediocre movie. Even "Little Red Riding Hood" is more frightening than this retro story. However, the premise was interesting (but certainly not innovative) enough to make something exciting out of it. And what totally bugged me, were the piercing light beams used in the woods. It made for some impressive images with shadow play, but after a while it was as annoying as a mosquito in your bedroom on a balmy summer evening. I'm filing this one without delay under the heading "Missed opportunities".

Suite Francaise
2014
Saul Dibb

"This German is our enemy. Do you understand?
Yes. Madame."

Occasionally my lovely, sweet wife (yep, she regularly reads my reviews) gets the privilege to choose a movie. Usually this is accompanied by a blistering reproach that I always get it my way. I always think of her when choosing a movie and usually it's an acceptable one. She tends to forget that. I usually look those gore and scarier flicks in the middle of the night on my own, so I'm saved from a wife who awakes in a panic while planting her sharp nails into my shoulders. Hence I braced myself for a romantic war drama and expected it to be a wilted station novel. Ultimately, it wasn't so bad. The romantic rumble was limited and there was more attention for the mutual relations between the richer and poorer population in the village of Bussy and the vicissitudes of a fugitive, crippled farmer.


Besides, I must admit that I have a weak spot for WWII movies. I readily admit that those were the dark pages in the history of Europe, but those developments in these years were a fertile ground for a whole range of excellent war films. The fact that Matthias Schoenaerts also succeeded in getting the leading role here, was another reason for me to give this movie a chance. Let's say chauvinism raised its head and as a Belgian I'm proud to see how this fellow countryman has worked his way into the club of the better international actors (sorry Muscles from Brussels, but you just didn't get in that club)


Surprisingly, I didn't suffer from aching jaws because of the complete absence of yawning. There's of course the forbidden love between Lucille (Michelle Williams), the daughter of the strict and cold landowner Madame Angellier (beautiful played by Kristin Scott Thomas) on the one hand and officer Bruno von Falk (Schoenaerts), a German officer who has been assigned a place to sleep at the manor of the latter two ladies, on the other. Eventually, this forbidden love remains slumbering a bit on the background and isn't imaged explicitely. But their like-minded love for music comes more to the fore. The additional storylines made it more interesting. The other arrogant German officer who sees himself as an Übermensch and treats the locals disrespectful, the callous mother in law who appears to be a resistance fighter in the making, the mayor and his wife (two genuine asskissers) trying to get in good graces with the occupiers but face the consequences afterwards and the resistance of a peasant against the oppressors.


All this is beautifully illustrated and featured with the usual scenes of war (a nosedive of German fighter-bombers against innocent refugees is included of course), which makes it an interesting war drama. But afterwards I didn't think it was that innovative, so to speak. It's the superb performances which nevertheless left a deep impression. The clichéd plot twists are not shunned, and what remains is a conservative adaptation of a manuscript left by a real war victim, Irène Némirovsky.

Stung
2015
Benni Diez

Oh, God, help him! I think something bit him!
You're a doctor! Help him!
I'm a gynecologist for Christ's sake!

I had a good feeling about this movie and the last old-fashioned giant insects film I'd seen was "Big Ass Spider". A movie with considerably oversized vermin who marched along and wreak havoc among the present crowd . The combination of horror, comedy and romance caused already a bit of distrust. Ultimately, this film hit the ball wrong when it comes to the first two genres. And the last genre felt a little forced. It wasn't really comical at all. And scary or exciting it was nowhere so to speak. I was expecting a sort of B-movie with no impressive CGI, but it was in fact actually pretty disappointing.


We meet Paul (Matt O'Leary) and Julia (Jessica Cook), a bunch of friends / colleagues (not really clear) on their way to a garden party organized by a certain Mrs. Perch for her deceased husband. The two take care of the catering. Soon this pleasant party is thoroughly disturbed by giant wasps / hornets / bees (I have no idea what kind it was, but they all sting I guess) that obtained their proportions because a mixture of growth hormones and fertilizer ended up in the ground, right into a wasp / hornet / bees nest.


Firstly I must admit that you don't need to wait that long before the **** hits the fan. Before you know it, it's all slime and blood that splashes around. Guests struggling on the ground with foam on their lips after which giant insect start to burst out of them. Just as in "Big Ass Spider" the insects look realistic when they're still of a normal size. But the moment they get those unreal proportions, it looks as if they came straight out of a "Dr. Who" episode from the 70's. Especially the scene at the end looks extremely awful. Even the phenomenon that appeared at one time on the sons shoulder, and reminded me of "Total Recall" from 1990 where someone had an ugly little man growing on his belly, looked really outdated. But admittedly, the amount of gore was huge and at times highly entertaining.


Yet there was much that bothered me. The transformations that occurred after someone was stabbed, was startling fast (but this guaranteed the fast pace in this movie). The romantic part felt really out of place. If I was in this situation, then this was really the last thing I'd be worried about. The way Paul developed from an unreliable catering assistant into an outright hero, isn't that original either. And the way it ends up in the ambulance was probably a metaphorical reference to the movie title. I just didn't know why that would be humorous (just like I didn't get the joke about the bees), but maybe I have a wrong sense of humor.



All in all a simple, short story with some flaws, with especially a failed presentation of the annoying insects and a lack of humor and tension. I will still consume a sugary drink on a terrace without running away in panic at the sight of some curious wasps.

Insurgent
2015
Robert Schwentke

“Divergent 100%.
I'll be damned.
What?
She's what we've been looking for.”

I really start hating those damn different film versions of children's books. They are always spread over several films so you always have to wait a year before you can see the sequel. Similarly this sequel to "Divergent". I could still partially remember what it was about, but the first 15 minutes I was actually systematically trying to reconstruct the previous film. It would be best to watch the previous movie once again before you start a sequel. But then again this happens never due to the lack of time. And then, to know that the last part of the sequel is again divided into two films, and that for the obvious reasons. Let's hope that my biggest fear won't come true, namely that we'll be overwhelmed by serial-like movies in the future.


Logically one makes a comparison with the similar series of films of "The Hunger Games". The first part of the latter was clearly way better than "Divergent". But "Insurgent" surpasses again the second part of "The Hunger Games" . I thought the latter was a faint duplicate of the first part. I had the tendency to check all the time to see if I hadn't started the wrong movie. "Insurgent" continues where the first part left off (quite logical, no?). It doesn't waste any time and soon it plunges itself into a series of thrilling action sequences. Tris (Shailene Woodley), Four (Theo James), Caleb (Ansel Elgort) and Peter (Miles Teller, who made a greater impression on me in "Whiplash"), the least reliable gland of the group, were separated from the rest of Dauntless. This faction had to flee after Jeanine (Kate Winslet) started a coup during which she wanted to eradicate "divergents" (for those who didn't know, Tris is Divergent which allegedly means she could belong to any faction) because they constitute a threat for the peaceful society as it exists now. Meanwhile Jeanine's troops have found a mysterious device with all symbols of all factions printed on it. Seemingly it contains a message from the founders of the city and can only be opened by someone who can undergo all the simulations without dying. Guess twice who the lucky volunteer will be!


Last year I said to myself not to watch the next parts of this series because it was so predictable and because of the teenage girl content. Well, you can see I gave in but no regrets this time. Yet only a few remarks. The uncomplicated way Tris could create such a trendy, modern styled haircut without a mirror and with a primitive-looking scissors (looks like an illustration from a glossy magazine which you can find on the table at your local hairdresser), even stunned my wife with a marveled reaction as a result. This will be the new hair style this summer, I guess. Then it occurred to me again that nobody can get on or off a train in a typical manner. And then there is the thrilling fact that seemingly without much effort (they are massively sought and still they can stroll around everywhere calmly) they are being overpowered, after which suddenly they are again liberated. And then of course the obligatory lovescenes are present as well.


But otherwise, this film is filled with action and the CGI is at times unprecedented that'll take your breath away. Especially the simulations looked amazing and detailed (especially the house floating through the air). The fact that you didn't know whether it was real or a simulated situation became a bit monotonous. But the film went on at a furious pace so you won't be bored for a minute. It's a certainty that I'll be watching the last part as well although I'll probably be pissed because of them making 2 films out of it. The end result will surely be two quite largely stretched-out parts.

Maggie
2015
Henry Hobson

“I made a promise to your mother,that I would protect you.
Yeah, but...what about you guys?
What if I hurt you?
Don't worry.Caroline and I, we know the precautions.”


Schwarzenegger performing in a horror that eventually turns into a drama. It's not what you expect from this action film icon. Strange but true, the one-liner "I'll be back" is even being recycled, but it's not said by Arnold this time. One fact is certain, Schwarzenegger will not go down in history as the actor who's suitable for a character part, but I must admit that the effort he did here, produced an admirable final result. After acting as a barbarian, a cyborg returning from the future, a clumsy kindergarten teacher and a pregnant guy, he acquitted himself in a proper way of his role as a concerned father who takes his infected daughter back home, so that she's not being quarantined at the moment she transforms into a bloodthirsty zombie.


Once again a virus is the cause that the number of ardent vegetarians among the US population drastically shrinks and slowly but surely turn into zombies, better known as "necro-ambulist". Wade (Schwarzenegger) is an older farmer, who's looking since a few weeks for his daughter Maggie (Abigail Breslin). When he finally finds her, she turns out to be infected after being bitten by such a barbecue fanatic. Wade is determined to take care of her at home. This is allowed because it takes a few weeks before a victim effectively makes the "turn" before going into a zombie-status. At that moment the verdict is that she needs to be quarantined. Ultimately that means that the authorities let the infected citizens huddle together (regardless what the degree of infection is) so the problem is solved by itself (through self-consumption so to speak).



I like a zombie movie now and then. Both the straightforward version, where there is excessive use of gore and bloody scenes with massive amounts of human remains that needs to be devoured and juicy brains, as the versions that differs slightly from the horror genre being created by Romero. "Dead within" is such a movie where the emphasis isn't on the living-dead creatures. And "Warm bodies" you can call the rom-com zombie movie par excellence. Also in "Maggie" you shouldn't expect apocalyptic images full of bloody zombies. Those images are restricted to two confrontations and a few flashbacks. The only horrifying is the slow change Maggie undergoes and a moment of self-mutilation. The final decision Wade has to make is his most daunting moment.


Maybe that's the only thing I could criticize. Schwarzenegger actually doesn't do anything special throughout the whole film, except mulling over the choice he has to make at the moment he starts to smell like a well-cooked bratwurst according to Maggie. Or putting his daughter in quarantine. Or administering a painful drug cocktail. Or the radical solution. You can see him pondering about it throughout the movie. His weathered, bearded face speaks volumes. But he does that with sincerity and conviction. The most memorable moment was when Maggie spent a night with some friends somewhere in a field completely with sulfur sticks and a somewhat inconvenient conversation that arose. A touching reunion where everyone pretended that everything was normal, but at the same time they all realized that this would probably be the last time they could enjoy each other's company. And of course the final scene that reminded me immediately of "World War Z".


It's obvious that the emphasis in this film is on the father-daughter relationship. Schwarzenegger and Breslin demand therefore the most attention and displace the supporting cast completely to the background. The following would sound a little trite: "Arnold plays a role in such a way you're not used of him." But in the end I could only conclude that it was just like that. He'd better skipped all previous performances (especially "Sabotage"). So I was clearly pleasantly surprised. About Breslin I can only say that this is a wonderful actress and a future star on the Hollywood firmament. Despite the limited dialogues, this was a brilliant acting performance in which she shows in a subtle way that she's aware of her approaching end. But her being a rising star, was something I already noticed in "Wicked blood" and recently in "Final Girl" (although this wasn't such a great flick). I didn't know she also played a part in "The Call". And another little fact: Schwarzenegger's name in "Escape Plan" was Ray Breslin. What a coincidence !



Conclusion: I'm sure the hardcore zombie fans will say that this is an abominable bad movie because of the total lack of gore and bloody scenes. However, I was impressed and felt that this film put the concept of a zombie movie into a very different light. The loving relationship between father and daughter is the central theme and it even tends to get melodramatic at a given time. And this in a horror film ?

Wild Card
2015
Simon West

“Well, I've been knocked down, blown up, lied to, **** on, and shot at.
So nothing surprises me much anymore, except the things that people do to each other. I'm a licensed pilot, took karate in Tokyo.I lectured on economics at Yale.I can memorize the front pages of the New York Times in five minutes and repeat it back to you in five weeks.I was the National Golden Gloves champion three years in a row.
I'm fluent in four languages and can wrestle with a menu in five more.

Jesus!
Don't interrupt me. There's more.
More ?
Yeah. I lie a lot. “

A film with Statham always guarantees a few solid brawls that usually end up pretty painful for his opponents. In the meantime he's commenting on everything with his juicy dialect. After testing his dramatic skills in the engaging film "Hummingbird" and getting his act together again in "Homefront" after the reasonable disappointing films "Parker" and "Safe", he is now back with a straightforward hardcore action movie. Unfortunately, the action scenes can be counted on the fingers of one hand.


Nick Wild (Jason Statham) is a kind of bodyguard offering his services to wealthy gamblers as they are trying their luck at the gaming tables in the casinos of Las Vegas. And on the side he also takes some small jobs like for instance acting as a punchbag for losers who want to impress their girlfriend. A woman called Holly (Dominik Garcia-Londo) asks for help one day because she's treated in a rather bad by a local tough guy. And there's also a very young multi millionaire asking for protection. Those are the two central themes of this film, together with the simple fact that Nick also has some personal problems notably a drinking and gambling problem.


The first storyline with tough guy Danny (Milo Ventimiglia) is responsible for the brutal part of the film. Not very original and on several occasions this was used in other revenge movies. The villain mistreats someone. The "good guy" mediates. The end result is a series of fights. And those fights are fierce with Statham defending himself with anything he can get his hands on. Highly original action moments which are very painful for his opponents. The moment I start handing out pseudo punches myself, means to me that the action is entertaining enough. You can expect Statham going nuts again and kicking some ass.


The second story is the more serious part in which the weaknesses of Nick Wild take centre stage. His drinking and gambling is what keeps him in Las Vegas. His reputation in this dissolute city and the company of bar girls and croupiers won't stop him from dreaming about a more exotic place. This is represented in the form of an idyllic spot with a boat. His ultimate plan is therefore to save up enough money to clear off and leave all that misery behind him.


My final conclusion is a bit split after watching this popcorn movie. You can't call it a real action movie because they are a bit too skimpy. And the serious drama isn't developed in such a way that you are impressed by it. Statham is simply Statham as we know him from all his films. That's a fact that Statham fans can be certain of. And besides Stanley Tucci (who remains engraved in my memory as the strict airport manager in "The Terminal") as the comic casino boss Baby and the very limited contribution of Jason "Seinfeld" Alexander as Pinky, a lawyer joining the same office as Nick, there are further no other significant roles. For me this average movie could be turned into an abbreviated version with all the action fragments assembled in succession.

I-Lived
2015
Franck Khalfoun

The concept of this film seemed interesting to me and relevant enough when looking at today's modern society. A restyling of the old Faust story, as it were. A modern appearance with a raised, pedantic finger at the way some experience their social life nowadays. Unfortunately, it really wasn't creepy enough to call it a horror. The images shown weren't demonic, but the subtle underlying message was. It's not that we are signing a pact with the devil when we create a Facebook account or a Twitter account. Or when you install an app on your smartphone that tells you when it's time to get some calories or finally have a decent meal, and periodically warns you when it's time to go to the bathroom. But some individuals their lives are so controlled by these social media, that it looks as if they really signed something.


Similarly Josh Fosse (Jeremiah Watkins). A nerdy twenty something whose girlfriend left him for a probably more social type of guy and who's not able to pay his bills due to the lack of a decent job. The only thing he spends his time with is chasing away or hiding for the landlady and maintaining a video blog where he tests new apps and gives it a score. Until one day he discovers the I-Lived app and uploads it to his smartphone. It's a simple app that asks for your wishes and after you've completed certain tasks, these wishes will also be fulfilled. Well, you don't have to be an Einstein to know where this is going.


The beginning of this film was quite pubertal and sometimes even annoying. First you have to undergo a series of these video messages. Apparantly Watkins is a pretty notorious comedian. He was already the funniest at home while walking around in diapers they say. But to be honest I didn't think it was that hilarious after all. Even a laugh track wouldn't have helped. Until the moment I-Lived (And for those who haven't figured it out yet : try reading the film title backwards) starts defining his life. Then there are some hilarious moments. They look rather slapstick-like but they are still funny enough to give this film a second chance. But by the time it all gets a bit darker and Josh starts realizing there are sinister forces at work, it's all a little too predictable plus boring and it's certainly not creepy.


Anyway, I thought the part about the User Agreement was cleverly thought up. Who reads those legal gibberish anyway before installing some software? Without a doubt hardly anyone. This was for sure an admonishing message. But beyond this subtlety it was widely annoyance being demonstrated with clockwork regularity. The first thing that struck me was the fact that most people knew their way there very well. Or perhaps nobody else is driving around there on the streets. Because you should take a close look at how long Josh's friend and girlfriend aren't paying attention while driving. I thought that was terrifyingly long. Then the app-reviews, which are presented all the time in a kind of YouTube manner, started to nerve me severely. The content was quite alright, but the recurring gimmicks in these videos were a bit too much. And at last the ultimate task that Josh must perform, wasn't that convincing and thought provoking. It 's not as sinister or insane as in "13 Sins" for example. Josh Fosse isn't really an acting miracle but fortunately all other actors their performances were of a questionable level, so in the end Josh's acting stood out in a way. Fortunately for him. The only sublime part in the whole movie was the connection between the first fragment and the last fragment. Unfortunately, the rest of the film wasn't as radical as the end.

Rob the Mob
2014
Raymond de Felitta

“Kid, you know where the **** you are?
Yeah, I'm at 140 Union Avenue.
I got the address right, right?
Yeah, that's it. That's the address.”

What a terrific movie. A film I've watched in amazement and where I was wondering all the time how for God's sake it could be possible that this has occurred in reality in New York in the 90s. Don't expect to see a gangster epos or something as similar as "The Godfather", simply because it's about the mafia. It's rather amusing at times, it's honest and it's, strange but true, extremely funny in a goofy way. I laughed out loud several times about the madcap situations Tommy and Rosie found themselves in (the first hold-up cracked me up).


This sympathetic, but not so clever and very naive, couple ensured that the Italian mafia didn't know what to do when someone suddenly started holding up clubs where members of the mafia gathered. First you see Tommy and Rosie as real crack addicts, committing a robbery at a florist. After their imprisonment (and apparently sobered) they decided to stay on the straight path and started to work for a collection agency that's run by someone who wasn't afraid to do illegal stuff himself in the past and who practised the motto that everyone deserves a second chance in life. Until Tommy and Rosie realize that they are underpaid and supporting themselves will become very difficult. That's when Tommy comes up with the insane idea to rob the mafia. During the trial of mobster John Gotti, he diligently wrote down addresses of those famous clubs. And one additional benefit is that weapons are out of the question there ("Guns and wiseguys is a bad mix"). The idea to rob them is indeed brilliant because nobody gives a damn about that. Not the public opinion and certainly not the authorities. And the last thing the mafia will do is to contact the police to file a complaint against some unknown persons.


"Rob the Mob" is not a mafia movie par excellence with liquidations and bloody reprisals, opponents that are buried in concrete somewhere or an omertà being broken. Ultimately, the role of the mafia in this film is reduced to that of a bunch of retired veterans, only left with their reputation and subsequently two young people make them look foolish. The whole focus is on this touchingly couple in love. The way Michael Pitt and Nina Arianda give shape to these characters, is simply magnificent. Tommy is the gullibility itself and you can see him evolve from clumsy to recklessly. His motivation for these actions is fueled by what this intimidating gang did wrong to his father in the past (which is seen frequently during flashbacks). Rosie is a lovely girl that follows Tommy without hesitation in this reckless adventure. She looks so disarmingly innocent with an engaging big laugh that camouflages her intellectual deficiencies. Arianda's acting is fascinating. The two main characters complement each other perfectly and act very natural. Pitt apparently has a sense for quality films. I saw him shine in the movie "I Origins", which I thought was also an impressive film.


Besides the two main characters, a series of famous film stars appear in it, giving it the right atmosphere. There's Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict in Ocean's Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen) as the illustrious godfather "Big Al" from the Vazallo family. Complete with an impressive gray beard which makes him look more like a grandfather enjoying his old age. Ray "Everybody loves Raymond" Romano shows up as the columnist who plunges into the improbable story of "Bonnie and Clyde" after Rosie called him, to his surprise, to point out there's a flaw in his previous article. Griffin Dune plays the amusing role of Dave Lovell, the enthusiastic owner of the collection agency (delightful part). And the mafia members all played in some mafia-related film in the past. Michael "The Sopranos" Rispoli, Yul "American Gangster" Vazquez, Burt "Once upon a time in America" ​​Young (a 75-year-old bloke that can still throw in a solid punch), Joseph "The Sopranos" Gannascoli, John "Mob Queen" Tormey, Garry "The Sopranos" Pastore, Santo "The Sopranos" Fazio, Vincent "The Family" Riviezzo. They all ensured that the authentic feeling of an Italian mafia-family is convincing. I only missed a collective feast while all eating a homemade spaghetti with meatballs in tomato sauce made by an authentic Italian mama.


This surely is a must-see movie if you like a casual and clownish film. After "The Godfather" episodes there still have been successful and less successful attempts to portray organized crime. The best description I read found on the website "The Playlist": "De Felitta takes a true story that occurred in the early '90s, adds two energized leads, a pinch of bearded Andy Garcia and a screenplay that goes down like cold ice-tea on a hot summer day to cook up a nice little homage to the good ol' days.". But for those who know the real story of Thomas and Rosemarie Uva, it certainly won't be a surprising ending.

Lucy
2014
Luc Besson

Predestination
2014
The Spierig Brothers


“What if I could put him in front of you, the man that ruined your life. If I could guarantee that you’d get away with it. Would you kill him ?”

Sigh! Where are those good old days you could enjoy a movie about time traveling like "Back to the future","The Terminator","Timecop" or recently "Looper" while lying relaxed in your seat without craving for a glass of aspirin as the film progresses ? The principle of paradoxes known to time traveling is cited in these films (like Michael J. Fox becoming blurry and the threat of disappearing because of his parents growing apart), but isn't of primary importance for the entire motion picture. "Predestination" is something completely different and is put together pretty damn clever and shrewd. But I assure you, the numerous plot twists and interwoven time loops will make you completely dizzy. The film is a hard nut to crack and requires tremendous concentration. It's a film where you go from one surprise to the next. It's similar to the "chicken and egg" conundrum. At one moment you are very sure that the egg came first, but new developments and revelations make you doubt this fact again and you'll revise your conclusion.


The film is based on the short story "All you Zombies" from A.Heinlein and tells the story of a "Temporal Agent" (Ethan Hawke) who, using an ingenious violin case, can travel back and forth again through time in order to prevent crimes . Especially that of the mysterious "Fizzle Bomber" who's responsible for a destructive bomb attack in the 70's in New York killing about 11,000 people. In a bar the agent, who is employed as a bartender, listens to the story of a certain John, who looks like a kind of Brian Molko from the 70's. What comes next are some bizarre drawn out story lines which, as the film slowly proceeds, merge into one point to ensure an obvious highlight. I'm not going further into details because this would only reveal the intricate puzzle. Unfortunately the final denouement only evokes a "Ah that's how it is" reaction. Eventually it's just a quirky fictional story with an identity crisis as central topic. However I think that the level of difficulty of this film will be a bit of an obstacle for most spectators.


"Predestination" is a masterpiece on a different level. The created atmosphere and especially the performances are eye-catching. The 70's are beautifully portrayed. The zeitgeist of that time with its authentic locations, fashion and music. But mostly, the performances by Ethan Hawke and for me the so far completely unknown Australian Sarah Snook made this film worth viewing. Ethan Hawke once again played a convincing role after his less memorable performances in "Getaway" and "The Purge". Not an easy part, but again one that suits him. Sarah Snook, however, is the one who steals the show and plays a fairly special role. Personally I found the reasonable long scene with those two characters in the bar, where Snook told her life story, preternaturally gorgeous. A fascinating story with delightful pieces of conversations and highly entertaining. It also takes over half of the film to complete and is the foundation that bears the whole story. After this, things start to unravel.


If there's a movie for which the concept "Mind f¨ck" was invented, then it should be this one. A fascinating story. But it would be handy if they wrote a manual for it. Don't be daunted by the slow and stretched first part. It's there that the identity crisis of John is decomposed with surgical precision. The second part is dominated by the time travels and the resulting paradoxes. And then you'll understand the usefulness of the extended first part where all the pieces are manufactured, so they can be fitted into each other very subtle. Somewhere they gave it the name-tag a "retro-futuristic thriller" with also a bit of romance and humor. A film which is difficult to grasp, but definitely worthwhile. And now I have a reason to watch "Jessabelle". Sarah Snook, a name to keep your eye on.

The Maze Runner
2014
Wes Ball


Thomas: "We get out now or we die trying."
Minho: "You don't get it. We're already dead."

"The Maze Runner" is just like its predecessors "Twilight", "Divergent","The Giver" and "The Hunger Games" an adaptation of a book. The same ingredients are present as in the above-mentioned films : a post-apocalyptic world where young people play a key role. A world where society is organized in a new democratic or non-democratic way. In "The Giver" human feelings were suppressed in order to ensure a peaceful existence and people are divided into so-called "factions". In "The Hunger Games" there are districts with the Capitol as an overarching body that organizes the Hunger Games annually. Also in "Snowpiercer" we see an example of a dystopian world with a particular social classification in a speeding train. The second ingredient that can't be missed is a revolution against the established values and laws. Obviously, this is again a youthful person with a charismatic personality who has certain talents and who becomes the savior.


Calling this a pubertal display that tries to take advantage of the huge success of "The Hunger Games" for me personally is greatly exaggerated. What the hell is wrong with the fact that a group of young people are trapped in a hopeless situation already for years and established a commune with its own laws and rituals. Isn't it a bit like "Oliver Twist" in Charles Dickens's story, who tries to survive in a miserable orphanage? And the group of young people who end up trying to solve the problem resemble enormously the group of friends from "The Goonies". Everybody loves that movie, not ? The sympathetic chubby Chuck reminded me immediately of Chunk ! Granted, it's not very original, and all they are trying is to taste a bit of the success that has this type of movies has with the young moviegoers. But intuitively "The Maze Runner" was for me a of whole new level.


It's a highly entertaining film that captivates from the first minute. What I appreciate the most, is the fact that there isn't too much time wasted on extensive digressions and you are catapulted right into the middle of the story. An elevator takes Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) with high speed up to "The Glade", where he's being welcomed by a group of youngsters who live there already for several years and who can't remember anything except their first name. It's a wooded glade and everyone got assigned a certain task. The glade is surrounded by an immense labyrinth of which the layout changes at certain times and apparently there is no way to escape out of it. Some of the boys got the status of "Runner". They leave at the crack of dawn and explore the maze. They try to chart the maze and seek for a possible escape-route.


The final story isn't that impressive and looks quite simple : put some young people at the center of a maze from which they can't escape and afterwards you add a rebellious adventurer who couldn't care less about the imposed laws and wants to do everything possible to escape. That's about it in a nutshell. But it's the way in which the maze is shown that deserves an applause. A mechanical maze that adapts itself at certain times and where at night terrifying monsters (called Grievers. A kind of spider-like robots) wander around. The constant threat of the maze, the unknown and the creepy night sounds provide for an atmosphere full of suspense. The rapid pace of the movie makes sure you won't be bored for a second. And the special effects look usually impressive. I was only familiar with Will Poulter (goofy Kenny from "We're the Millers") and Thomas Brodie-Sangster ("The Last Legion"). The rest of the cast are relatively unknown young actors (and one actress). Usually there's always one person that mostly starts to annoy me, but this time I thought they all were acting properly. What surprised me the most was the fact that the introduction of Teresa (Kaya Scodelario) didn't led to yet another teenage love affair as in the other similar movies (But I'm sure this will be a fact in the sequels).


In my opinion an exciting and successful teen adventure with a few shortcomings. First, I don't think that those who read the book will think it's so overwhelming. Probably it won't meet the expectations and there will be things that are left out or shown in a different way. And knowing the end of the film will surely ruin the fun. Lucky me though, "again" I didn't read the book. Secondly, I found it pretty idiotic that the group of youngsters were able to build a tower to get an overview of the maze, but not one of them was clever enough to build it next to the wall. And third the ending was quite abruptly. That this is a transition to the logical sequels of this film is obvious. Hopefully they'll be of the same level as this one and not like "The Hunger Games" of which the second part really looked like a duplicate of the first. And fourth, I find it a bit sad for the firstlings who spent three years searching the exit and the newcomer solves the puzzle in a few days. Although I'm not a proponent of sequels or prequels and I hate it that movies tend to inherit the characteristics of a boring and tedious TV series, I'm enormously looking forward to the second part. Jeeeezzzz, I'm amazed about myself !

The Prince
2014
Brian A. Miller

Long time ago it was customary to offer Bruce Willis a leading role, because it was guaranteed that he would carry the whole movie and determine the success of the respective movies. He was also demonstratively placed centrally on a movie poster or video/DVD box, where he could look you right into the eyes in a penetrating way. A look with determination and one that shouted "Die Hard" slogans like "This movie is MINE. I own this movie. I'm the ruler in this movie, yippiekayee Motherf*cker ... ". You couldn't resist it. You just had to see this movie in which Bruce "The Invincible" ruled.


But those days are long gone. Willis has been degraded to a prop, a necessary evil and a meaningless ancillary character. He's still in the foreground of the movie poster like yesteryear, but compared to his overall contribution and the importance of his part, this can be easily reduced to a tiny photo, so you can hear surprised cries when moviegoers look at the poster "Hey isn't that Bruce Willis there on that tiny picture in the corner? ". Sadly, the last performances of Bruce Willis were as impressive as that of the Christmas tree in "Home Alone" or the snowman Olaf in "Frozen". It was kind of necessary but not decisive for the success of the film (although I give Olaf more credit on second thought). Look at "The Cold Light of Day", "Fire with Fire" and "Red 2" and you see him as a prop that is commercially exploited and who tries a new revival of the past glory as John McClane. "A Good Day to Die Hard" was just a mockery compared to the first "Die Hard" movies. A steel pin right through my heart. As a true "Die Hard" fan it was too sad for words.


Luckily, he's accompanied by another Hollywood star who has more downs than ups, namely John Cusack. Despite the monstrosities "2012", "The Numbers Station" and "Grand Piano", he manages to keep his reputation high due to participating in "The Raven", "The Frozen Ground" and "The Butler". Sadly enough his contribution to "The Prince" is also meaningless and minimal. I will always relate Cussack to "Serendipity", how crazy that may sound ! His role in "The Prince" is merely limited to explaining the whole situation. That's it.


Jason Patric and Jessica Lowndes are the ones who steal the show in this film. But only till halfway, because from then on the show became tedious and boring. Paul is a retired criminal, who turned his back on the past and spends his days in a little town repairing cars. His illustrious past however brusquely reappears the day his beloved daughter (with a drug addiction) is abducted. It reminded me a little bit of Statham in "Homefront". I must confess that the first half of the movie was entertaining. Paul who leads a seemingly common life and who can convince the seductive and tasty-looking Angela to take him to New Orleans, turns out to be a tough and well trained fighter who can stand his ground. The sangfroid and coolness can be compared with that of Bruce Willis, who we can admire in the beginning and who seems to be nothing more than a crazed,frustrated crime baron seeking revenge. But as the film progresses, it reminds me more and more of the ancient fighting games I played on my C-64. You had to fight against various opponents throughout numerous levels. As one progresses it becomes more difficult to beat the opponent. And in the end you are confronted with the final boss. Same here !


Besides the fact that the whole story is fairly simplistic and boring, it's the fact that "The Prince" is nearly untouchable which makes it unrealistic,implausible and terribly irritating. Once again a film in which the opponents use a lot of ammunition without even hitting anything, and the protagonist walks around like a spirit while shooting the total opposition into smithereens with some well-aimed shots . There is nothing so satisfying as seeing some confident posers with a big mouth getting their ass kicked. But if that same person can dodge bullets in a superhuman way, the fun is over. And "His Royal coolness" Willis was convincing at the start, but the moment he started sniffing at Paul's daughter her hair like an old pervert, this feeling was immediately swept from the table. I'm afraid I'm going to avoid movies featuring Willis in the future, since it's only used to promote an inferior film and exploit it commercially. I miss that "Yippiekayee".

I had a little interest in Rob the Mob anyway, so your review convinced me to put it on my watchlist.

Keep up the good work!

Deliver us from Evil
2014
Scott Derrickson


Sarchie : I've met a lot of priests. You don't seem the type.
Mendoza : And I've known a lot of cops, and you're exactly the type.”

The most common topic in the horror genre is exorcism and everything that has to do with possessions. I admit that this is the closest match to everyday life because everyone has something he's excited and passionate about. It's like he or she is possessed by it. There are also individuals who must fight their personal demons every day. It's obviously not quite the same as the case detective Sarchie is confronted with. I'm obsessed about watching movies and sometimes I consider my job as a real demon that needs an exorcism. But rather that, than the entity that rages in "Deliver us from Evil". It's not an original film and certainly not groundbreaking, but I've seen worse creations the past year.


Personally I never came into contact with someone or something possessed by a demon and I don't understand why a normal person in such circumstances stays calm and tries to look at it rationally. I would surely run away and disappear without a trace. It seems like nothing or no one is immune to getting possessed, because I've already seen a whole collection passing by that evil took possession of : a church, a doll, the claw of a monkey, a Jewish casket, houses and innocent teenage girls. In "Deliver us from evil" for once it's an adult male who's the victim of an evil demon. Just as in "The Exorcist", where Father Merrin finds a statuette in Iraq as an archaeologist (which in turn causes a lot of misery), evil also originated out of Iraq. Some American soldiers end up in a kind of crypt which subsequently also causes all kinds of misery. Apparently the Middle East isn't only the main supplier of oil, but also a repository of all sorts of supernatural scum.


Nowadays horrors tend to be based on true facts and stories. This film also follows this tradition and is based on a book written by Ralph Sarchie ten years ago, in which he describes his experiences with paranormal situations. The film is not 100 percent the same as the book. Certain passages were used by Scott Derrickson (Sinister, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Devil's Knot) and Paul Haris Boardman (Hellraiser: Inferno, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Devil's Knot). Taking into account that also the production was in hands of the "Jerry Bruckheimer Films" production company, which is responsible for some well known movies like Pirates of the Caribbean, Deja Vu, Black Hawk Down and Pearl Harbor, you'd expect an extraordinary movie.


Those who watch a horror only occasionally, will have a pleasant and scary evening. For the tender-hearted among us, it will be a nerve excruciatingly, exciting film. Seasoned horror film lovers will get a "Well, haven't we seen that before" feeling. In terms of creating the right atmosphere they did a fine job. The entire film is immersed in a dark and oppressive setting in dreary New York City, more specifically the Bronx, and you get the impression that it's Sodom of America. A sinister, eerie scenery where Sarchie (Eric Bana) and his partner Butler (Joel McHale) face the pernicious that manifests itself in man. The dark alleys full of filth, the slums with dilapidated buildings and shabby accommodation, and the human suffering they encounter there. The body of a dead baby in a dumpster, domestic violence, murder, suicide and violence. Every day they are confronted with this. Until a nightly intervention concerning domestic violence leads to more obscure and sinister cases with an evil entity that's responsible. Expect the necessary cliches: a crucified cat, the well known scare effects, some gore moments (including the ever-present meat maggots), the self-playing piano, once again it's raining practically all the time, a foam-spitting confused woman who speaks gibberish in a foreign language and a traditional exorcism ritual that goes through all stages. And obviously mostly it takes place in the dark....


It's no suprise that "Deliver us from Evil" couldn't outperform the classic "The Exorcist". And mixing up a horror with an ordinary police thriller isn't a mind-blowing idea. Yet I found the duo Sarchie and Butler a successful formula. Sarchie is more of a coolheaded and fearless type who's gifted with the ability to detect mischief, while Butler takes care of the comic part. A bon vivant who eagerly uses sarcastic and cynical comments (humming the "The Adams Family" theme was pretty funny). It's not exactly brilliant acting that'll get them an Oscar, but it wasn't annoying bad either. I only felt that Bana, as a non-believer who renounces everything that has to do with religion since years, surrendered very quickly. Also Olivia Munn as Sarchie's pregnant wife, couldn't escape the cliché and appeared again as another neglected wife of a hardworking New York police officer. Personally I found the roles played by Olivia Horton and Sean Harris as respectively Jane and Santino , were the most imaginative. The moment Jane comes crawling out of the dark, drenched by blood with a bunch of keys between her lips, yields an image that can compete with some of "The Exorcist". They both look demonic, fearless and destructive. But surely Edgar Ramirez excelled the most as the modern priest Mendoza, who himself had a self-destructive past and who throws himself fully in a fight against the demonic evil.


"Se7en" was a masterpiece in the police thriller genre. Also dark, hallucinatory and unnerving exciting. But Satan didn't perform in it. Not literally anyway. "The Exorcist" was an unmatchable milestone in which exorcism played a key role. But here wasn't a detective involved. One would think that the mixing of two masterpieces would provide a unique film. Apparently not. "Deliver us from evil" manages to fail in both categories. It seems like a constant battle between the two genres. The end result is that it doesn't know which way to go. It's not bad, it's grim and horrible at the same time, but ultimately it's also not that impressive !

The Anomaly
2014
Noel Clarke


“Is there a technology that allows people to control somebody else's mind?
Tell me about mind control!”

Once I was looking at a painting in an art gallery. I was studying this creation of modern art for more than half an hour and still I couldn't grasp what it actually wanted to prove and I came to the conclusion that after rotating it a quarter turn, there won't be any essential change. And then I remember the compulsory reading of a literary work out of the magical-mythical oeuvre of a Dutch writer, who used two pages to describe dead flies on a windowsill. And clearly I recollect the lesson "Statistics" at the university, looking at the blackboard for more than an hour and wondering what all the complicated theorems really meant. I had the same feeling while watching "The Anomaly". After half an hour I asked myself "What the hell am I watching and what's the meaning of it all ?". Seeing the main character waking up for the fifth time in a different location, looking around in a dopey way and not understanding how he ended up there at a different time in the future, began to irritate quickly. Meanwhile I could admire the graceful butt of a lascivious-looking vamp. Although it was a tasty image that claimed my attention, the urge to give up became larger by the minute.


It all starts with Ryan (Noel Clarke), an ex-soldier suffering from a trauma, waking up in a moving van where he finds a boy called Alex who is being kidnapped. He escapes with Alex but soon discovers that he only has a limited time to find out what is happening. To be precise, he only has 9 minutes and 47 seconds each time he wakes up and before he loses consciousness again. Slowly but surely he discovers that he's part of a conspiracy and his actions are coordinated by someone else.


As I mentioned earlier, it takes a while before you begin to realize what it's all about. "The Anomaly" is a dull low-budget film which starts very slowly and finally, when all the pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place, it all looks fairly simplistic and even ridiculously farfetched. It's like a rough mix of "Source Code", "The Bourne Identity", "Edge of Tomorrow" and "The Matrix". Regaining consciousness over and over again resembles a bit "Edge of Tomorrow", except that this phenomenon in the latter made sure there was tension and some comic moments. In this SF it's only a soporific effect. The fight scenes that occur repeatedly are a faint copy of this from "The Matrix" with the frequent use of slow motion images which isn't very conducive to the overall tempo in this film. Also the technical implementation by Noel Clarke during these fights wasn't convincing. It seemed as if he was waiting for something all the time. In other words, it wasn't really smooth.


Noel Clarke is quite a handyman in movie land. This British actor (better known for his role in the TV series "Doctor Who") directed this trifle and demanded to act as the leading star. Besides looking puzzled and surprised, painfully gasping after receiving an inhuman hard blow and acting as heroic as possible by repeatedly proclaiming that he eagerly wants to save the young boy Alex, there was nothing impressive to admire for the rest. I am quite convinced that the film was sponsored by a manufacturer of mens underwear, because Clarke was running around in it several times. Also the graceful leading lady Alexis Knapp as Dana, the Mother Theresa of this film, could be admired while wearing it or even less. At the first appearance we could glance at her lower body part and afterwards she was also scantily dressed. Eventually these were all fragments needed to raise the slacking attention, but at the same time I realized that her contribution only served to make things more sensual. Ian "Lost" Somerhalder is the one that appears again and again and who plays a significant role in the whole plot. I could not get rid of the impression that it was more a commercial decision to let him play so the female audience also could enjoy the ride. Brian Cox ("The Bourne Identity," "Mindscape" "Her" and "Doctor Who") has a lot of acting experience , but in this movie he's reduced to a houseplant who hardly comes into the picture.


An unconvincing story, no impressive performances and a total lack of tension. There's not much left anymore to save this from going down the drain completely. And the fact that this is a low-budget film, also means that the SE's won't be impressive. Admittedly, London still looks futuristic with the digitally added buildings at the background and flying airships. But the moment Ryan arrives at Times Square, everything looks average and contemporary (Even a screenshot shows that "We're the Millers" is still popular in the future.). The complete concept wasn't ill-conceived, only the script was poor and incoherent with some ridiculous situations. You didn't need to wait for this very long. Already at the beginning there was something wrong with the pursuit. Young Alex and Ryan have a small lead and yet they were too quick for the probably well-trained kidnappers. With an Olympic effort they managed to take a nice lead. And despite the high-tech gadgets that were available, they still couldn't prevent sun-flares disturbing the satellites. Eventually I began to wonder if the title of the film wasn't a reference to the film itself. Maybe it was just an exception to the rule "It's so bad, it turns out good".

Sabotage
2014
David Ayer

“Some of us are getting paid, the rest of us are just getting dead.”

So, You thought that Schwarzenegger would eventually retire on an Austrian alp, sitting on a terrace of a mountain hut with a big bierpul of "Kaiser Bier" within reach and a huge cigar between his fleshy lips while looking out over the valley, saying with a deep voice "Ich habe es Ihnen gesagt: Ich komme wieder". Or that he's wearing a bermuda and a Hawaiian shirt while sitting somewhere at the coast of California, getting a tan and looking out over the ocean. Well you were wrong. This former Mr. Universe and former governor of California came back with a rather explicitly violent action film. After the average film "The Last Stand" and the reasonably successful "Escape Plan" in which he and his eternal rival Sylvester Stallone turn up, I thought that this action-hero would call it a day. His contribution to "the Expendables" is as ironic as the film was intended.


But then they come up with this tough and bloody action movie in which John Wharton (Schwarzenegger) aka "Breacher" is in charge of a Special Operations Team that specializes in infiltrating criminal drug cartels. In another raid on a nest of drug traffickers, they manage to cram a portion of piled up drug money through a toilet drain, with the intention to recover it afterwards. However, the money appears to have disappeared and the team is suspended from active duty for a while so they can be subjected to an internal investigation about the alleged concealment of drug money. As members of this testosterone-charged team get massacred one by one in a beastly manner , Breacher starts together with detective Caroline Brentwood (Olivia Williams) an investigation, to find out who is the real culprit.


"Sabotage" is fully in line with the other Schwarzy movies. Partially anyway. First, the performance of old Arnie is still the same: stiff, emotionless and poorly. I can't understand that after all these years playing in American films, he still speaks with such a heavy Austrian accent. Not that his dialogues were so extensive formerly. It's only Arnold who uses such bombastic w's in witty phrases like "Get your weapons", "Get down" or "Are they as big as your wife's ...". Or is it just his trademark after all these years and he remains stubbornly loyal to this quality ? Just to remain recognizable in between the majority of today's action heroes. Additionally, you shouldn't expect a lot of depth in his movies. The same counts for "Sabotage". It's just a series of brutal action scenes in old-school style.


What surprised me was the level of sadism and gore that was used in this film. Normally Arnold's films are well packed with hard fight scenes and enormous shootings with innumerable victims. A wet dream for the average undertaker. Only in previous films they were economical with artificial blood. Mostly there wasn't even a speck of blood in it. In "Sabotage" on the other hand it flowed richly and they even showed some terribly mutilated victims. Arnold has reached a certain retirement age and performances with enormous physical efforts are no longer obvious. His contribution in this film is limited to leadership and using automatic rifles. The excitement was reasonably good and I dare even say that the traumatized Breacher was realistically portrayed by Arnold. Who would have thought of Arnold exhibiting a bit of acting talent.


"Sabotage" is an average exciting movie but holds on to the same formula as we know from Schwarzenegger. However, I fear that those who saw this movie, already forgot what it was about after a week. Even an action-packed chase scene at the end can't change the fact that the whole thing looks kind of lousy. The final twist, which is actually a logical consequence of the opening scene, isn't exactly impressive. There were also some imperfections in this film. How the hell could they know that the missing sum was $ 10 million exactly ? They kept detailed records of this drug cartel ? Even the attempt to break the record of "The Wolf of Wall Street" (the frequent use of the F-word), began to work on my nerves after a while. And despite the fact that the team consisted of a bunch of professionals, it felt more like a group out of a kindergarten at a certain moment, who amused themselves with childish bullying. "Sabotage": a raw and dark film with bloody scenes. According to David Ayer the film was sabotaged by the studio. They demanded to cut out half of the film. Whether this has ensured this film to become an average flick, we will never know.

Into the Storm
2014
Steven Quale


“Look at the size of that thing!
We're gonna be YouTube stars
for the rest of our lives!
Better than sex, Donk!
How would you know?”

Tornadoes, hurricanes and typhoons. Divorced men sometimes even compare them with their ex-wife: they appear suddenly, they disappear suddenly and before you know it you lost everything and are left behind penniless. So these are phenomena you don't want to encounter too much. Apparently it's the fault of a global warming (which must be in other corners in the world because where I live it's still cold, chilly and mostly wet) that causes tornadoes to appear so often and primarily plague the US mainland. Here in Europe fortunately we have less problems with it. Eating soup with brown beans will cause more commotion and turbulence than these natural phenomena. The tornado you can admire in "Into the storm" is of an exceptional caliber and you can hardly call it a "storm in a teacup". But if it was the intention to surpass the movie "Twister" from 1986, then they failed in all areas. It's a sad attempt, stuffed with boring cliches, terrible performances with boring and sometimes idiotic dialogues, now and then really bad CGI and nonsensical situations.


Pete (Matt Walsh) and his team are a group of professional "Storm Chasers". They have been on the road for a terrible long time, trying to film the eye of a hurricane. Apparently he has contracted the wrong academic counselor because Allison (Sarah Wayne Callies), a single mother and climatologist, succeeds in sending them in the wrong direction every time. So they always show up to late and the devastating hurricane already packed his bags, to the annoyance of Pete who sees his financial sponsorship gradually drying up due to the lack of results. Eventually they end up in Silverton where a super-storm apparently will strike. Here we meet a typical family with the death boring father Gary (Richard Armitage) and his two teenage sons Donnie (Max Deacon) and Trey (Nathan Kress). You can say that their family situation is quite stormy.


First, lets start with the positive things.
The opening scene was perfect. A tasty begin that made me lean back in anticipation of an entertaining evening while watching a natural disaster. A bunch of teenagers swallowed by an oncoming tornado, led directly to the right atmosphere. Unfortunately, however, it remained with this particular moment.
The two hillbillies took care of the hilarious part. Two clodhoppers racing through the countryside with a quad, handling a handy-cam and smartphone so they can make the perfect film of the storm, which they can post on You Tube so they become world famous and rich. A splendid duo that made me think of a "Dumb and Dumber" variant located in a disaster movie.
Some sequences with the raging tornado was eye candy. It looked real and the made destructions were imaged effectively. Especially the airport scene was prime. I was just wondering why such a small village needed such a mega-airport.


Which part was bad in this film? Actually, just about the rest. First, the untold number of cliches they swept together. A short list: the disinterested father coping with his sons, the son who's still dealing with the loss of his mother and blames his father, the impossible love who looks down on the nerd Donnie (with such an indignant look) at the beginning and you already can guess how this eventually will work out, trees that just happened to be blocking the last bus in a long line (and only the protagonists were sitting in it initially. Perfectly organized !), the father who's dominated by the headmaster but in the end puts him in his place, again a single mother and a lonely father and how they grow to each other is also so predictable. Secondly, the poor performances. Some dialogues felt so forced and uninspired. Sometimes it seemed like a soap opera that took place in a disastrous situation. With the ultimate heartbreaking moment when Gary saves Donnie and they fall into each others arms. The fact that most of them are only known from TV series, says enough.


Third, one can't exceed such a brilliant film like "Twister", which was impressive and original even though it's a film from the 80's, by simply showing four tornadoes raging simultaneously on the screen. And the way they appeared and disappeared, was also a bit exaggerated. And who remembers the flying, mooing cows in "Twister" ? Such hilarious moments were non-existent in "Into the Storm". Fourth, the CGI was not that impressive. A heap of Dinky Toys models that were blown together and buildings looking like cardboard boxes being destroyed. Fifth: the end with the immense pipeline under the road was too bizarre for words. Due to the immense suction, everyone had to cling onto something. But still there was someone standing in the background, filming everything. Astounding!


Conclusion: A faint duplicate of the movie "Twister", without conviction and swagger. It was even necessary to take part in the "Footage" hype of today. The dumb duo was the only bright spot in this film in my opinion. So, you have some spare time and nothing to do, then this is an alternative to waste your time. But there's really nothing in this film that will blow you away ....

Noah
2014
Darren Aronofsky


“We broke the world - we did this. Man did this. Everything that was beautiful, everything that was good, we shattered. Now, it begins again.”

I really wonder what's so terribly bad about the movie "Noah". Granted, it smells a bit like commercializing the book of all books (And I think this still is the most ingenious elaborated marketing plan ever devised in human history. This marketing plan made sure a book was written that will dominate the list of bestsellers in perpetuity. Probably until the end of the world ...) in compliance with all film adaptations of other literature (some great, some bad). After "The Lord of the Rings", "Harry Potter", "The Hunger Games", "Divergent" and other similar books susceptible to commercialization, it seems like Hollywood has found a Biblical gap in the market. End of this year Christian Bale will be wandering through the bone-dry desert like Moses (also with a trimmed beard) in "Exodus: Gods and Kings". Darren Aronofsky's religious story "Noah" is of a moister content, with Russell Crowe hammering together a huge boat, so he can defy the salt water (God sprinkled the earth's surface liberally) together with his offspring and all species living on earth, except for the water creatures, because they feel comfortable in this huge bathtub. But isn't it so that it should be freshwater instead of saltwater with all that rain ? And aren't there two types of aquatic animals ? Those who survive in saltwater and the others ? How was this crucial problem tackled ?


Anyway, despite the practical issues, this was a highly entertaining spectacle with an abundance of special effects and water (They used about 83,000 liters water in this film. A quantity that would make the average Ethiopian farmer really jealous ... ). You could expect the Christian community not being happy about the making of this film. Isn't it sacrilegious to turn this pious story into a mega spectacle and create it like contemporary fantasy films? (Sarcastic tone) I suggest they redesign the interior and decoration of churches, so that it would be a reflection of this rather epic-looking film. There's a high probability that one could reach a new fan base and the population of the group of churchgoers could grow again. I have no idea if this version of "Noah" follows the original story faithfully. The only thing I knew about it, was that an ark full of animals,which drifted on an immense ocean, played a major role. I don't know if the family troubles as presented here, correspond to the biblical story. It would be just a simple,short film if Aronofsky remained faithfull to the biblical version, because that story about the adventures of Noah is not that big of a deal.


And that's probably the Christian audience's key problem. The whole story is firmly filled up with profound special effects and great battles. A bold yet extremely successful choice was the introduction of "The Watchers". A collection of fallen angels who mutated into rocky beings. The comparison with "The Lord of the Rings" is made quickly . In particular, the movement of The Watchers is very similar to the way "The Ents" moved. Difficult and slow but at the same time, they can strike in a devastating way. The moment these "moving masses of rock" start to protect the Noah family against the onrushing crowd, with a fair part of the crowd being violently crushed and spinning through the air after a massive draw with their blocky fists, you could easily compare it with the attack on Minas Tirith (not the same size but with the same amount of adrenaline). Also the Ark is visually excellent developed. An apparently gigantic freighter with an entire zoo on board. Beautiful images and realistic created animals. Even the devastating flood was successful shown and was less fake as the one in "Evan Almighty".


Maybe it was the acting? Honestly I can't say anything wrong about that either. Ok, Russell Crowe doesn't really look like a devout man and the way he declares biblical phrases, seemed like a market vendor who tries to sell fake products convincingly. And yet he did it properly and the matter of conscience he was struggling with in the end, was sublimely interpreted. Only the emerging fanaticism started to bother me. But ultimately this is a tedious facet that's part of a religion. Although Jennifer Connelly, Naameh the wife of Noah, was limited seen in the picture and didn't play such a big part in the whole set-up, she was still the driving force that propelled Noah in the right direction. Anthony Hopkins, the helpful grandfather Methuselah who yearns for berries impressed me. And Ray Winstone as the warlike king Tubal-Cain, represented evil. The rest of the cast was necessary, but not particularly memorable.


"Noah" turned out to be an average disaster movie with a serious family conflict which could eventually become a family drama. Maybe it wasn't quite literally as written in the Bible, but in the end it was not sacrilege. And there is certainly no profanity. Maybe Christian representatives could be a little less narrow-minded and give this interpretation some credit. Eventually the sequence Aronofsky used for the creation of the Earth is also just a guess. No living soul can conclusively prove that this is the ultimate truth. Indeed, it's not a film where a funny giraffe and roguish elephant cosily sit alongside each other and look over the railing to the rising water. It's rather a gloomy and depressing picture about humanity who lives in sin being swept of the earth by "The Creator", because he's sick and tired of it, so He can start over with a clean slate. But with whom? That's another theological riddle, I suppose.


Finally, some elements that seemed disturbing and a bit implausible. That the Ark was immense, I can imagine. But that it's of such a size that a stowaway hasn't been discovered after a year, seems a bit exaggerated. Knowing that the stowaway isn't vegetarian, wouldn't that be detrimental to the resting flock ? The pregnancy test made me frown. And the final denouement is entirely hallucinatory. Eventually Noah didn't need to worry about anything in the end, because the offspring was the solution on their own. And otherwise I need to think twice next time, before I use the word "inbred".


All in all, it's an enjoyable film (despite me not being that religious) with a few little miss, but still a stunning visual presentation with beautiful, serene interpretations. For those who started tearing their hair and protesting against it (even before there was any finished material): isn't it written in the Bible "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14) ? I suggest you forgive Aronofsky's artistic freedom and approach this interpretation with a more open mind. That would be nice example of "loving one's neighbour". Amen !

The Babadook
2014
Jennifer Kent


"If it’s in a word, or it’s in a look
You can’t get rid of the Babadook.”

For a horror to be successful, there are several opportunities for hands. Either you use gore elements in such a way that blood, guts and all sorts of other slimy ingredients start dripping, slipping and flowing from the screen. Either an old known creepy veteran (vampire, werewolf or serial killer) shows up and during nocturnal activities scares the **** out of people. Or you use a busload of "from the underworld" derived demons, who take control of a weak person or some ramshackle building and should be exorcised by applying religious rituals what leads to objects flying around and an in foreign language speaking monstrous-looking possessed person. "The Babadook" has none of this. This subtle horror story uses dark corners and grim,sinister sounds. It's a story that can be interpreted in different ways and in which the phenomenon of "The Babadook" appears by reading a children's book which popped up suddenly in Samuel's bookcase. It's the same as in "Candyman" where the legendary figure Candyman appeared when chanting his name five times in front of a mirror or as in "Evil Dead" when the demons were released after a tape with ancient ritual texts was played.


Six years after the fatal accident that killed her husband Oskar (Benjamin Winspear), Amelia (Essie Davis) is still processing this heavy loss and tries to make ends meet as a single mother, together with her son Samuel (Noah Wiseman). The accident happened on the way to the hospital when Amelia was about to give birth. A traumatic experience that disrupted her relationship with Samuel. You can be sure that Amelia is torn by guilt and her feelings for Samuel balances between affection and blame. Samuel also did not emerge unscathed from this life event and is anything but an easy boy. At a certain moments I assumed that the unruly and hyperkinetic child Samuel, was the thread in this horror. What a nightmare it is to raise such a hysterical child! The hysteria is also fueled by the irrational fear Samuel has for monsters, what leads to a daily ritual of checking closets and other spaces, the inability to control him, Samuel who can't function in a normal way in a group with all the consequences and the sleepless nights. And when "The Babadook" even starts to wander in the dark corners of the house of this dysfunctional family, total insanity is not far away and Amelia is on the verge of a complete nervous breakdown.


The Australian writer and director Jennifer Kent manages to mix the well-known "fear of monsters under the bed"-item with traumatic life events and an emotional state of mind into a dizzying downward spiral that leads to total insanity. It's not horror elements and terrifying frights that enables this, but the excellent performances of Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman. Essie Davis plays an extremely complicated character who, as the film progresses, degenerates psychologically and needs to drag herself fatigued,depressed and hopeless through life. Kent clearly focused on the portrayal of this mother-figure and very minutely Amelia's psyche is exposed. Noah Wiseman manages to portray Samuel as a very annoying, uncontrollable and confused boy with an obsession for weapons, which he needs to defeat the evil monsters with. This obsession gets him expelled from school and injures the snooty daughter of Amelia's sister. With his bulging eyes and pale skin, he looks sick and obviously you have both pity on him and on the other hand he's so unbearable that you would prefer to smack his head against a brick wall. Just as his mum wished to do at a particular moment. Would he be such a brat in reality than this performance is nothing special. Otherwise it's a masterful acting performance. "The Babadook" is ultimately a kind of "Edward Scissorhands" dressed like a magician. A caricature as pictured in the inky pop-up book.


"The Babadook" is not your average horror and was subtly elaborated. It can easily be called the most original and bizarre horror of the year. The seasoned horror fans will not find it truly terrifying and some patience will be asked from the impatient horror fans to endure the slow build up. But put that aside and you can enjoy an excellent psychological horror that'll still haunt your thoughts for some time. It's your choice to decide whether this film is an observation out of the perspective of Amelia or whether it's a manifestation that arose from her psychological mess. I thought there were some hints that suggest that we are witnessing the nightmare Amelia lives in. Or "The Babadook" is just another bogeyman that can be placed in the gallery together with his colleagues.

"Ba-ba-ba ... dook! Dook ! DOOOOOKH ! "

Lockout
2012
James Mather, Stephen Leger

“Ow! (INJECTS)
That'll freeze the nerves in this spot for 24 hours.
You want some on your mouth? “

Don't expect a cinematic masterpiece when watching this movie, but expect it to be an entertaining empty-headed action sci-fi with Guy Pearce as a purebred John McClane, in an ultra-modern prison in space, who must save the president's daughter. A clichéd kind of Musketeers story with the slogan "One for all, all for one" replaced by "One against all". A well-known and popular story with the hero fighting against a whole horde of scum, just about 500 murderers and rapists who awoke from an artificial nap, and helping a comely damsel in distress. You can safely call it "Die Hard In Space".


The story itself isn't really special and feels rather incoherent. Don't be discouraged by the terrible chase scene at the beginning of the film. That looked terribly outdated and it seemed like it came straight out some kind of C64 game. Some parts are fairly unlikely (including the wind tunnel and the disguise trick of presidential daughter which gave me a "Yeah sure" feeling) and the predictability level is immense high. But besides that, the action-part can be considered very satisfactory and particularly the characters are interesting enough to turn it into an entertaining movie to fill up the evening.


Guy "The Rover" Pearce enjoys himself here as the quite burly muscular bundle "Snow", who behaves in a rather fatalistic way and pulls every now and then a dry one-liner or sarcastic remark out of his hat, what provides for some chuckle moments. Once again the comparison with the young Bruce Willis is made quickly. The conversations between him and Maggie Grace (as Emilie Warnock) are highly entertaining at times. But especially the two criminal brothers Alex (Vincent Regan) and Hydell (Joseph Gilgun) steal the show (a kind of "Jekyll and Hyde" interpretation). Two extremely dangerous criminals with Alex as a born leader. But especially Gilgun is brilliant at times as the total crazy Hydell with a heavy English accent. He looks quite terrifying and spoils the plans of his brother over and over again (a stupid decision which Alex makes again and again).


Besides the imaginative design of a space prison where dangerous criminals are piled up (literally) to serve their sentence while being in a coma, a whole bunch of hilarious one liners and action scenes filled with crazy prisoners, in the end this is just a third-rate simple action movie with a linear storyline. A film that fits in our consumer society. Consume, digest and forget. My favorite part is the beginning of the film where a punch and a crooked cigarette are the attributes. Once again it immediately reminded me of a similar scene from "The Last Boy Scout". I assume that Bruce has done it all before.

The Longest Week
2014
Peter Glanz

“Sometimes you're your own worst enemy.”

For Conrad this was apparently the longest and most painful week. For me this was the longest and most painful movie experience. Anyway I have a strong dislike for a voice-over that begins with "This is ..." followed by the name of the main character. This is usually already a bad omen. You can almost compare it with the voiceover that starts with "My name is ..." followed by the name of the main character (with a few exceptions such as "Forrest Gump"). But lets return to "The Longest Week". They've taken their time to release this romantic comedy (although I haven't discovered much humor). Apparently it was already completed in 2012. Was it doubt that made them forget about it ? Or were the reactions of the test audiences so disastrous? However, if you want to see how a spoiled rich son in his thirties is thrown out of his comfort zone without money or continuous attention for his egocentric personality, after that relying on a friend to get through this horrible time and falling in love with a handsome model, then you should definitely take a look. Don't forget to lay down a cozy cushion near you, because this is just about the slowest film I've ever seen with content so meaningless, that I hand over an award to myself for unparalleled endurance.


Visually it all was quite beautiful to watch. Stylized, detailed and artistically (the series of images, the jazzy music, the clothing and furniture). It also had a little tendency to be pretentious. Well that suits the main character Conrad : a pretentious snob who's being pampered all his life by the staff of The Valmont Hotel. A narcissist who has never proven anything and will never have the need to prove himself. Someone who was born so privileged that he can't imagine what it's like to care for himself in real life without everything being handed on a silver platter. Maybe that's why I already hated this pretentious layabout and would-be author after 10 minutes. The fact that his future novel (in the line of Fitzgerald) wasn't yet completed, I attribute solely to his lifestyle. That some life lessons are the cause of an acceleration in his writing process, was pure fiction, in my opinion.


Read other reviews and the name Woody Allen comes up often. Despite the reputation and the huge share of followers this filmmaker has, I've never been a fan of his creations. They each seem like complex, highly intellectual comedies. I always had the impression that the humor of Woody Allen's films was hidden in the syntactic errors that the main players made cunningly, because I never really thought it was funny. I know that those who link this movie with Woody Allen didn't think of this fact particularly, but for me this is the most plausible link, because real humor I haven't found in "The Longest Week" either. There was one particular moment for me that seemed comical. When Jenny Slate (I really have to watch "Obvious Child") gives her opinion about a play they've attended, and by that lays her finger on the sensitive points.


I understand the satirical meaning of this film and the exaggeration of Conrad's pretension, but couldn't honestly empathize with the complete story (in analogy with Slate). It's like the descriptions used for Dylan Tate, Conrad's best friend : Dylan is "an anti-social socialist", "a closet conversationalist" and "a clinical neurotic". A series of expensive, intellectual words that sound complicated, but ultimately mean nothing. Similarly, the snobbish conversations with much ado. I was always wondering which individuals would converse in such a way with each other and at the same time know what it's about. Even the notorious love triangle they came up with, felt artificial. As artificial as the eyelashes of Beatrice (Olivia Wilde). They reminded me of the plastic doll my sisters played with 40 years ago. It had the same flashing eyes with lashes so big that you could protect yourself against the burning sun in summer. Pretentious, not?

Stonehearst Asylum
2014
Brad Anderson

“The satisfaction of helping those in hell.
See, of all the afflictions, I can think of none more, more cruel than madness, sir.
See, it robs a man of his reason, his dignity, his very soul.
And it does so, so slowly, without the remorse of death.”

Can you remember Ben Kingsley in "Shutter Island" as head of a psychiatric institution dressed up in a white overcoat ? In "Stone Hearst Asylum" he took that white overcoat back out of the closet and while smoking a pipe with a pensive look, he's extensively lecturing about the revolutionary method he applies at psychiatric patients. It's a movie based on the short story "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" from 1845, written by the supreme master of horror stories, Edgar Allan Poe. This master of the sinister and macabre, who used the dark depths of the human soul and primal fears as a foundation, situated this story in the south of France in those days. An institution used an unconventional way to treat internees. Instead of locking them up, they allowed patients to empathize with their delusions and their madness.


The whole story is relocated to Britain in the Victorian era. In that time psychiatry still used inhumane methods such as bloodletting, rotational therapies and outright torture by use of electrocution or near-drowning. It's in this period that Dr. Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess) arrives at the quite spooky looking and secluded Stone Hearst Asylum. A Victorian building that easily could be used as background for an old horror movie and resembles Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania. Newgate wants to gain clinical experience in this institution. A tour of Dr. Lamb shows that the psychiatric treatments used look pretty bizarre. Soon however, he's warned by Eliza Graves (Kate Beckinsale), a gifted pianist who looks absolutely beautiful and immediately arouses Newgate's curiosity. She urges him to leave Stonehearst as soon as possible.


And then we're off for an old-fashioned detective thriller where Newgate is trying to figure out what hidden secrets there are within the walls. A costume film with lots of candlelight and draughty corridors and dungeons. A sad fact is that very early in the film the greatest secret is revealed, so the tension actually gets badly mauled. It's not a real nail-biter anymore afterwards and eventually it evolves into a dated suspense film with a touch of romance, a spark of excitement and a bit of comedy. Nicely designed though, but at the same time as gruesome as an episode of Sesame Street. However, the final denouement was still Poe worthy and fairly surprising.


Brad Anderson can be highly thankful for getting together such a star cast for this movie. Celebrities like Ben Kingsley and Michael Caine are not just any actors. Unfortunately Caine's contribution is fairly limited. That's because of the circumstances in which he finds himself and afterwards because of his mental state. Kingsley can indulge himself in his role as the fairly unstable and unpredictable Dr.Lamb. A role with emotions swinging back and forth like an old fashioned pendulum clock. But the most I enjoyed the character Mickey Finn, played by David Thewlis (Better known as Remus Lupin from Harry Potter). A fairly disturbed figure with murderous thoughts. Kate Beckinsale provides the visual delight with her beautiful appearance. Although she's actually the most normal looking person among all the other crazy characters, I always felt like watching at Keira Knightley in "A dangerous method". An expressive facial expression accompanied by a lot of sighs and groans. Jim Sturgess was predominantly in the picture, but actually didn't make an overwhelming impression.


In the end it wasn't an earth-shattering movie. Amusing yes. And there are worse ways to spend your time. What stays with you are the odd personages who roam through the corridors of this institution: the man who thinks he's a horse and only meekly follows orders when he's being threatened that his next comb-over will be skipped, the nymphomaniac nurse and the Frankenstein-like wild man locked in a dungeon. The wise words told to aspiring psychologists at the beginning "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.", is indeed applicable to this film, because there are some whoppers of story twists in the end. Final tip : don't watch any trailer, because they give away too much !

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
2014
Matt Reeves

"I always think... ape better than human. I see now... how much like them we are."

After the magnificent "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" from 2011, Caesar the legendary ape who started the revolution for his species, can show up again in this sequel. It's 10 years later and the world has been decimated thanks to the Simian virus. This flu originated from a genetically engineered virus and ensured that the apes became systematically wiser. The magisterial beginning shows Caesar in close-up and from there it's a run-up to an amazing first 20 minutes in which no human is seen and we witness the ins and outs of the apes commune, who communicate by use of a kind of sign language. They have retreated into a mountainous forest near San Francisco, where they have formed a primitive society with Caesar as the absolute leader. They lead a peaceful existence, not aware of the fact that humanity has survived the pandemic. Until such underdeveloped biped turns up one day and immediately shoots an ape at first sight. And that's the beginning of a very interesting struggle for power between two different cultures with survival instinct, self-preservation and demarcating the territory as a central issue. Eventually you start to wonder who really is a primitive species.


Is it necessary to see this movie in less than no time because of the original story with surprising twists? Nope, not at all. It's not really that exciting and even a normal chimpanzee can predict the outcome. But, it's the amazing design of the apes and the sometimes real human actions and emotional traits that they show. Probably the fact that the actors are "motion captured" has something to do with it, but it's still breathtaking to watch. At certain moments the CGI wasn't quite correct. Especially the fragments of the horse riding apes. You can notice sometimes that these were computer animations. But that's really nitpicking. The Most part looked lifelike and one can only conclude that the authentic episodes of "Planet of the Apes" from the 60's were irrefutable populated by costumed actors.


The final confrontation between humans and apes, with Caesar, again played by Andy Serkis (who formerly also performed as Gollum in TLotR), and Malcolm (Jason Clarke) as the two righteous leaders of the two parties, is of course inevitable. Clearly a sociopolitical theme was ingeniously woven throughout the cheap, ordinary Hollywood entertainment. The mutual distrust with revenge as the cause for the sneaky tricks and treachery. One group is pissed off because the apes are supposedly the origin of the extermination of mankind. The other group is unnerved by the years of abuse in laboratories and a doomed life in captivity. The result, of course is a clash with also some internal feuds and conflicts.


Unfortunately after several memorable and downright masterful film clips, we're treated with some ordinary, cheap action movie scenes. A kind of "Expendables meets The A-Team" with heroically swinging of automatic rifles, rockets whizzing around the ears as if the third world war just began and even a tank broke loose. Next to that a big can of sentimentality is pulled open quickly leading to an engaging conversation between Caesar and his son. And then the curtain falls across this magnificent epos with a picture of a real Messiah who parades among his followers. An open end that yearns for an overwhelming third part. But beyond this kitschy final offensive you can admire a few cinematic gems like the appearing of the apes colony in the big city, where they speak to the crowd in an admonishing tone. You could feel the consternation of the crowd after hearing the first words of Caesar. And also the magnificent mimicry Koba used at one time to deceive two armed men. A moment where CGI and facial expressions blend effortlessly. Yes, that's the reason why you should watch this movie.

Mindscape
2013
Jorge Dorado

“If you ever find me particularly attractive in a memory …it’s probably because I made that up too”

There's this saying "A penny for your thoughts". And sometimes it's better not to know what someone's thoughts are. John Washington (Mark Strong) experienced that firsthand. John is a "Memory detective", working for Mindscape Company, and has the ability to penetrate into the memory of people in order to figure out what's going on in the psyche. This procedure is sometimes used in court cases to determine whether the accused is indeed the culprit. It's still not totally valid but the technique is preferred to be used instead of a lie detector test. But John himself is also a tormented spirit and during a session he got confronted with his own memory of his deceased wife and he got a mild heart attack. He's mentally unable to perform his work as "Memory detective" and he goes on a well-deserved rest. The lack of money becomes a problem and he's forced to return to his boss Sebastian (Brian Cox) who gives him a seemingly simple case in which a teenage girl refuses to eat. John needs to find out whether she is a brilliant sociopath or a traumatized teenager.


The movie "Mindscape" (also known as "Anna") balances between the classic detective and the modern science fiction genre. Immediately "Inception" comes into your mind as a comparison. And despite "Mindscape" using the principle of dream layers (but here it's applied to memories), it doesn't feel like a real SciFi. It's rather the unraveling of a complicated puzzle. I think the film is more like "Extracted" although the latter was a major disappointment when it's about the level of tension. Although John has the ability to explore someone's brain cells, it seemed he himself had a shortage of those. I was surprised that he was a notorious "Memory detective", because although the clues were so crystal clear (the signature for example), he didn't seem to notice them. Did he need huge fluorescent arrows to point it out for him ? And apparently the writers thought that the audience watching this movie stood at the end of the line during the dispensation of brains, because there were really huge whoppers of errors and improbabilities in the end.


But despite the disappointing end and the illogical conclusion, it was an exciting and dark film. While John digs deeper into the memories of Anna, he becomes more and more embroiled in an ingenious spun web of misleading events and mysterious developments. The story reveals the different pieces painfully slow. Mark Strong has that look that perfectly suits the person John Washington : confident and focused, smart enough to make the right associations (but yet not smart enough to interpret the obvious clues correctly. Too evident probably.) . And yet he looks like a fragile and vulnerable person who exudes a kind of melancholy and gloom. This will probably be a typical trait of Strong, cause he also looked like that in "Welcome to the Punch".


Taissa Farmiga, the intelligent Anna who balances between trauma and violence, was an undeniably perfect choice for this role. For me, a rising star of the same level as Saoirse Ronan: an innocent look with a certain sensuality and yet frighteningly dangerous. She looked familiar to me and afterwards I read she played Sarah in "Jamesy Boy". The conversations between John and Anna were pleasant to hear and sometimes put together in a very clever way, with John trying to uncover the truth, while Anna quirky parries these attempts by using her intellect. It's a pitty that the intellect of reasoning and conversing wasn't used in the overall storyline. Because despite a slasher-like start that turned into a psychological thriller, was the ending still pretty disappointing. The rendition by Farmiga was impressive. The storyline however will only be a memory after a while ....

Moms' night out
2014
Andrew & Jon Erwin

“So here's the Plan... We take them inside, get their hand stamped and they can't get out. Like Shawshank Redemption.”

Let me just say it briefly but powerful. I thought this was an insult to all current fathers who are portrayed again as incapable to raise children or watch over them for a while. Again there's the image that a family life and the daily organization only can run smoothly when super-mammy is around. Let hubby take care of it and everything will end up in a chaotic mess. Sorry, but I think this is such a terrible outdated idea and again the subject of another "everything-goes-wrong" film. These days new terms like "The New Man" are used frequently so the idea being used in here, is kind of old-fashioned. And the statement that modern women can do a multitude of tasks simultaneously nowadays, is also a rarity. There are enough women who aren't blessed with this multitasking feature.


I also hate these kind of movies where everything goes wrong and it always seems like "Murphy" is at every corner waiting to interfere with the situation in such a way that everything goes haywire. I am a very huge fan of the sitcom "Friends" and have always looked at these episodes with pleasure. Except for one episode and that's the one where Ross needs to give a speech and everyone gets terribly annoying so it looked as if it would turn into a disaster. In the end everything turns out just fine. That's a recurring security in such films (and also in that particular episode of "Friends"). "Moms' night out" also finishes in a corny way with a Christian message. Afterwards I was terrible dizzy and I was struggling to get my eyes back into position again. And this because the film constantly annoyed me and made sure I was turning my eyes around like hell in my eye sockets.


The entire film can be summarized as follows. The highly stressed mother Allyson (Sarah "Greys Anatomy" Drew) urgently needs to take a break to let off steam (she's not blessed with the multitasking option apparently) and asks her two friends, Izzy (Andrea Logan White) and Sondra (Patricia Heaton) to join her in a night out. Her husband Sean (Sean Astin who still looks like a hobbit) understands the situation and fully supports her. He'll take care of the children that weekend along with his friends Kevin (Kevin Downes), who hates children, and Marco (Robert Amaya), who also could use some psychiatric assistance due to his chronic anxiety when it comes to childcare. And then the "Night out" starts and the accumulation of accidents, mishaps and misunderstandings begins. Even a summary of all extreme disaster movies of the last decade is nothing, compared to this catastrophic night. Everything goes wrong. And I mean literally everything.


The performances aren't that great either. However, this is not due to the performance of the actors themselves, but rather because of the created stupid, bland, banal cardboard characters with their dramatized and pathetic traits. The tensed mother, with a bunch of kids, who are portrayed as a gang of hooligans, who suffers from a cleaning illness and sees herself as a complete failure (she can't even think of any content for her blog , the poor soul ...). Her girlfriend, the wife of a priest, acts like a saint but ultimately it appears she has a more dissolute past. Sean is the typical loving man who always seems to understand his wife (but it turns out he doesn't. And he's not the only one ...) and tries to take matters in hand, but ultimately looks pretty clumsy. His friends transform during the film into something they are not at the beginning. The only admirable display was of Trace Adkins as Bones. A kind of "Hulk Hogan" type who turns out to be the savior in distress. Even his moralizing speech afterwards (of which he doesn't understand the impact) I could condone. A successful performance that managed to put a half smile on my face. And the last honorable mention: Manwell Reyes as the person in the tattoo shop.


As full time working parents of two little kids, we've never experienced such situations and think it's slightly exaggerated. As the film progressed it started to cause irritation. Even my wife, who's my checkpoint when it comes to comedies, also looked at me with a slightly frustrated look after a while. Afterwards I can conclude that this was a fairly unsuccessful movie. It's a comedy without funny moments. Just like a barbecue without meat. The intention is good, but the end result is tasteless. And for all the happy newlyweds who have plans about expanding their family, I strongly advise not to watch this film. They might rethink it ...

The Borderlands
2013
Elliot Goldner


"The Borderlands" provides evidence that an IMDb score isn't necessarily a guarantee that a film is bad or excellent. I've seen movies that had a low score there and still surprised me. This would-be horror still gets an exceptionally high score, but I found it depressingly bad. I even read someone's opinion in which he suggested that he was afraid to look at the screen because it was too psychotic and shocking. I'm sure I've seen the censored version, because there was really nothing horrible or terrifying in this film.


To be honest I also had trouble watching this movie, but this because of the urge to fall asleep all the time. "The Borderlands" tries to profit from the hype of found-footage films. It's a kind of "The Amityville Horror", but this time set in a church, mixed with a bit of "Paranormal Activity". Although these activities are very limited. I promise I won't reveal too much, since it's already a very weak and thin story. Otherwise there will be absolutely nothing left anymore. The film refers to a religious aspect and especially the way the Catholic faith was imposed causing ancient primal religions being supplanted. The Vatican regularly sends a team of experts to certain places around the world where supernatural phenomena occur. The whole purpose is to investigate whether these phenomena are authentic or, as shown in most cases, simply are of a natural origin or pure fraud. So a team whose members are an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman (sounds like a joke) , is given the task to investigate a case of paranormal activity in the local church in the British West Country.


But I have to hand it, this film has the perseverance to keep all aspects related to a horror to a strict minimum so the end result is a bunch of meaningless components. First, the story is simplistic and not particularly innovative. The suspense part is anyway meager. A horror won't be horrible because of a pair of sliding candlesticks, a burning sheep or a sheet full of meat maggots. A few scary noises and slamming doors won't make it exactly a possessed church. I guess it's rather due to the fact that the dilapidated church stands on a hill and therefore is subject to the forces of nature, including wind gusts. The found-footage section was also nothing to write home about. You have 3 investigators constantly walking around with a mobile camera attached to their head, shooting sickening swirling meaningless images. The technician on duty also covered the whole house where they were staying with fixed cameras (why exactly there, while the phenomena are occurring in the church, was a mystery to me). On these images which were shown constantly throughout the film was, what a surprise, nothing to see! At the end there remained one practical question: how the hell did they get those found-footage images ?


And than the thing that got most on my nerves: the acting. What a bunch of implausible characters they scraped together here. First there's the technician Gray (Robin Hill), who doesn't believe there's something spooky going on in the beginning and rather wants to scram as soon as possible, but eventually stays because of the bonus. But when the first candle in an inexplicable way hits the ground, he's immediately convinced that something isn't right. Then we have the firmly drinking Scotsman Deacon (Gordon Kennedy) who apparently made ​​a miscalculation in the past (with priests being murdered as a result) and they still blame him for that. And finally the fairly haughty Irish ambassador of the Vatican Mark (Aidan McArdle) who has a reasonable persevering attitude towards the poltergeist situation and has a plausible scientific explanation for each suspicious phenomenon. And the thing that almost gave me chronic diarrhea, was Gray ending every sentence with "Dude". This stop-word was even used when talking to clerics. It seemed as if this ghost story took place in the slums of New York instead of on English soil. Fortunately there was no crucifix nearby, otherwise I had thrown it to my LCD TV after the 50th "Dude".


I'm not really a big fan of found footage (for the usual reasons) and till now I only saw a few that were quite worth it. However "The Borderlands" is on all fronts a big disappointment. Lousy renditions, absolutely no tension or suspense and a really farfetched and abrupt ending. The only positive is the claustrophobic closure and the sometimes sarcastic, humorous dialogues. The reason why I watched the whole movie is because I was curious how it would eventually end.


Conclusion: yet another found footage hocus-pocus story without scary or intense moments, totally not original or groundbreaking, with a bizarre collection of characters like a gullible non-believer, a skeptic spiritual and a priest who should reread the Bible before using his fists again. Many parts are probably interesting for hardened hikers who dare to stretch their legs on weekends and make long walks through fields and woods (with the unpleasant confrontation with feces from ruminants). The end was eerie but came too late.

Wer
2013
William Brent Bell

“There are also some signs of bite marks,
that seems to belong to a great beast.
Broken knees as a whole.
Well, the whole jaw was broken.
Again, no signs of the use of weapons of any kind ...”

There is a horror genre of which really very few films are made, and that's the werewolf genre. We are inundated with films about zombies, all sorts of demonic forces and paranormal phenomena. But we don't see our profusely hairy friend that often. There are only a limited number of successful werewolf movies like "The Wolfman", "Silver Bullet" and "The Howling". "An American Werewolf in London" is for me a classic and a jewel in this genre. It's no surprise that this film won an Oscar and a Saturn award for best grimage. Of course there are also some misfires in terms of grimage, special effects and content such as "Night Wolf" for example.


In "Wer" (ridiculous movie title by the way) it's not a werewolf we get to see, but rather a "Wolfman". This means you won't see a real transformation into a wolf and the corresponding creature has excessive hair growth, an impressive stature and probably strong jaws with disproportionate grown teeth. It's not really the appearance and movement of a wolf (although we do get a glimpse of this at the end).


Just as "Afflicted" managed to revive an old horror genre (in this case about vampires), of which films are made into infinity with all necessary and related clichés, by approaching the subject from a different angle, "Wer" tried it with the werewolves genre. It's also starting with a found-footage part where we witness how an American family, on holiday in France, becomes the victim of an unknown creature that tears them into shreds. After a while the obscure,strange individual Gwynek Talan (Brian Scott O'Connor) is arrested. He's suspect number one and accused of being the person who committed this terrible crime. An imposing person with hands like coal shovels and who looks like a walking hairy carpet. Talan is entitled to a lawyer and that's when Kate Moore (AJ Cook) comes up with two assistants Eric Sarin (Vic Sahay) and Gavin Flemyng (Sebastian Roche).


You can divide the movie into two parts. The first part is the least interesting part (to be honest it's fairly boring). A.J.Cook wasn't really convincing as a lawyer and came across as a timid lightweight advocate. It's only until Talan is subjected to a medical examination to determine whether he suffers from Porphyria, a disorder which affects the hair grow and the body length of a person, the situation starts to escalate. This disease is also important evidence because if someone suffers from this condition he can't move that fast anyway. So it could be the ultimate proof that Talan might not be the culprit. The principle of a werewolf is approached in a scientific way. Kind of original.


The second part is flashy and brutal with quite a few skulls being crushed and a whole bunch French policemen being dismembered. A rapidly moving violent werewolf who, despite its almost human form, goes on a killing spree in a monstrous way, leaving behind an unreal bloody trace. Despite the limited budget, the used SE's are realistic and there's never a feeling that too much CGI was used. We get a ferocious werewolf that causes a true massacre. Also Gavin will provide an extra surprise which will lead to a fairly grotesque and absurd ending. Need I say that Sebastian Roche treats us to a wonderful acting performance.


Despite the slow start, where really nothing interesting happens, and the absurd ending, it still resulted in an eerie, terrifying and intense monster movie which is still worth to give it a try. Even the found-footage (of which I'm not really such a big fan) didn't really bother me. It's self-evident this isn't really a family film. There are some explicit images of mutilated bodies and a blood-stained looming figure, that turns this into an ominous film. It surely isn't exactly intended for little kids. It won't go down in history as the most successful werewolf movie of all time, but it certainly is way better than all the pitiful efforts which have been undertaken over the last 10 years.

I feel like you've cheated yourself out of a good movie based on the werewolf design, which to my eyes is nothing more than high camp, and done well all things considered. An American Werewolf in London had Universal Pictures behind it and all of that money with an auteur director who made them money and who got plenty of finance, not to mention make up effects teams that were pay rolled just fine. I'd say that in spite of this low budget here, Robert Kurtzman of KNB did fine work, even with the transformation scene. I mean, this was part comedy, after all, and to compare it to Landis's film based on what you wrote about the werewolf look, I just don't understand how you can discount all the great things that were glaringly more important about the film aside from the obligatory beast.