"Now you keep writing. It don't matter about what, it don't even matter if it's good or not."
Yet another moralizing "boy-on-bad-path-comes-to-reflection" story. There are probably several such individuals of whom a story could be told. Despite the fact that this is a story based on true events, it is a film stuffed with cliché elements. It will be an inspiration for some, but that was the movie "Life of a King" with Cuba Gooding Jr.. too. Only the latter was more convincing and credible. James Burns looks more like a member of "The Backstreet Boys" or a modern parody of James Dean, with his clean-shaven appearance and perfect hairstyle. Hopefully the air conditioners worked on maximum in the cinema, so that they didn't need to evacuate massively fainted teenage girls.
James Burns ( Spencer Lofranco ) is a troubled boy who has spent most of his youth in institutions and already running around with an ankle strap at the age of 14. He has an impressive long criminal record, including threatening his mother's boyfriend with a knife. His single mother Tracy (Mary - Louise Parker) does everything to get him back on a by society accepted track. Only James feels misunderstood, and he lacks the will to tackle his life in a different way. As a result, he derails soon and begins again with loitering, truancy, smoking joints and eventually participate in robbing a local store. There he meets Crystal (Rosa Salazar), the local mattress of the neighborhood, who introduced him to Roc (Michael Trotter), a local gang leader and drug trafficker. Because of his sturdy and apparently fearless attitude, James gets more respect from Roc who is promoting him to his right hand after a certain period of time. Yet James tries to get his life back in order and he meets Sarah (Taissa Farmiga), the daughter of the owner of the local store they have previously robbed. Eventually it goes wrong anyway and James ends up in jail. His tough and self-destructive attitude crumbles there slowly. Partly caused by Conrad (Ving Rhames) who's been sentenced to life and tries to convince James not to end up in the same way.
Besides the cliché content, also the implausible performance of Lofranco is a setback. He doesn't look like a self-destructive and menacing mobster. Several times I found it a bit ridiculous as this good-looking teen idol waves around with a heavy gun at a fierce looking gangster. Immediately I associated it with the arrest pictures of "Justin Bieber". Also such an angelic face. In general, the acting performance of Lofranco wasn't that bad. Just his looks didn't fit. Obviously we have a mother who'll never give up and still has a little hope that her son will still come to his senses, but eventually realises it's hopeless. Also a girlfriend appears and naturally she introduces him to the wrong friends and drags him into his downfall. Prison life is of course a battleground with different rival gangs and a rather impressive tough gang leader (Taboo from The Black Eyed Peas) of whom, how is it possible, James isn't impressed. That makes that they end up in a fight regularly. The pathetic newcomer also has to be present. Again it's someone who looks like he wouldn't even hurt a fly and the tough guys start harassing him. James of course comes to the rescue for this weakling. And then there's the savior in the form of Ving Rhames. A figure that looks like a steamroller who would crush you effortless to serve as fillings between his sandwich, but repentance came while in prison and he dreams of Rio de Janeiro and the huge statue with spread arms on top of a mountain ... sigh . Eventually, he manages to convince James to change gear. So James subsequently emerge as a future poet and he starts to write down deeply human rhymes. We get the well-known images of someone writing down something diligently, then thoughtfully looking into infinity for a few seconds and then writing enthusiastically again.
"Jamesy Boy" is a typical story. You start wondering if it really was necessary to make a movie about it. There are so many other like James in the world. The only beautiful moments were the quiet and fragile ones with James and Sarah. Tomorrow I'll forget all this and in the future as it is broad-casted once again on some television channel, I will think deeply whether I've seen it or not.
A humble opinion about this modest movie. Without realizing it, I was watching a 70-minute film. It ended before I knew it. I found it remarkable that the introduction was so short and it didn’t take long before Tom Miller (Max Minghella) got stuck on a floor in a pharmaceutical company with a killer. A thriller (with really almost no thrills) without bells and whistles.
Yet some respect for Joe Hohnston who directed films like “Jumanji“, “The Rocketeer“, “Jurassic Park III” and “Captain America: The First Avenger” in the past. And here he’s involved in the making of a simple low-budget straight-to-DVD movie. And also with a production company which released films like “Paranormal Activity“, “Oculus“, “Insidious” and “The Purge“. A sticker on the DVD cover with these data on it and you have a guaranteed amount of film fans who expect a gem. I am convinced that a large part of them will be disillusioned.
Not safe for work
So Tom Miller is a novice clerk who works in the legal department of a large pharmaceutical company. He’s trying to prove himself and writes on his own initiative a note about a mafia family. However, this is not appreciated by everybody and he is fired at the end of the day. (We are only 5 minutes far in the movie). When he arrives in the lobby with his personal belongings in a cardboard box, he witnesses a briefcase exchange between someone who leaves the building and a second person who looks like a businessman. Of course, he decides to follow the man and he eventually ends up on the same floor where he had just left and he realizes after a time he’s stuck on this electronically sealed floor.
Not safe for work
What we get is a kind of “Die Hard” hostage in an office but without a lot of action, gunfights and comical and entertaining dialogues. It’s a cat and mouse game where all the characters are mostly running and creeping around back and forth. Only JJ Feild, as the cold-blooded killer, made an impression in terms of acting. Until the last moment, he remains admirably calm and he gives the impression to have situation completely under control. The rest of the company just put on a mediocre acting show.
Not safe for work
Is it such a bad movie ? No not really. I found it fascinating to watch. As long as you don’t expect some pronounced action, thoughtful dialogues and sophisticated put together storyline, it’ll increase your appreciation level. I don’t know if it is intentional, but there really are no explicit or gory murder scenes. The short playing time is another plus. That way you won’t get the opportunity to get annoyed about certain things.
Conclusion: A straightforward low-budget thriller with very few surprises or twists, but still enjoyable in a certain way.
"I'm not hijacking this plane. I'm trying to save it!"
Not very original, but unnerving exciting at times. "Captain Philips", "Speed", "Last passenger" and "Under Siege". There isn't a vehicle that drives, sails or flies, and it has already been hijacked in a movie. It seems as if Liam Neeson really likes playing in action movies. And just like in "The Grey" he's a person who struggles with his past.
Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is an Air Marshal who actually has an aversion to flying. Because of the loss of his little daughter, he's a bit in the doldrums. The beginning of the movie shows a decrepit, not so fresh looking Marks, pouring a bit of whiskey in his coffee. A security guard with an alcohol problem who's about to get on board of a trans-Atlantic flight. That's asking for trouble. Shortly after the takeoff, he receives text messages via the secure network with the requirement to transfer $ 150 million to a bank account. If he doesn't meet the requirement, someone will be killed every 20 minutes. And so the search for the perpetrator among the 150 passengers begins.
All in all it was a highly entertaining film with a constant tension. It's a long time ago that I've watched a movie sitting on the edge of my seat and wondering who would be the one who's doing this. All the time someone else is a suspect what eventually makes it more fun to watch. There have been made several thrillers that take place on a plane. It's the ideal location to make an exciting film. But there are quite a few strange twists in this film. I got the impression that Marks was on his way to London, to be dishonorably discharged. Looking at the conversations it seems like his superiors didn't have much confidence in him as a security guard. If he's so psychotic and unstable, why didn't they ask the second security guard who's on board to take over ? The news was also a bit exaggerated again. If such a tricky situation would arise on board of an aircraft, the news would surely be more discrete. And i would love to see somebody doing in reality something like Marks did, when he flies around in a free-fall and grabs his gun which is hovering around him.
Ultimately, these are only minor futile remarks that won't change the fact that it's a clever story. The claustrophobic feeling and the feeling that you are so vulnerable up in the air, is constantly present. The scene in which text messages are floating around Marks, are wonderful to see. Neeson shows again in a convincing way a resolute and alert agent, despite his personal misfortune and the allegations against him. The general feeling prevails that he completely lost control. He has such a stature that exudes confidence, despite its small imperfections. Julianne Moore is the cold-blooded Jen whom he met on the plane accidentally. A woman who, as we learn later , wants to have a window seat for medical reasons and thus ends up beside Marks. Jen eventually becomes his refuge and the only one Marks trusts. The supporting roles are reserved for some familiar faces like Scoot McNairy (Monsters , Killing them Softly , Argo , 12 Years a Slave) , Michelle Dockery (Hanna) , Nate Parker (Red Tails) and Lupita Nyong'o (Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 12 Years a Slave).
I haven't been bored during this film. It's just a hostage drama, but the pace of this movie makes sure you don't have the time to consider this. The only low point was the uncovering and the revealing of the motivation to start all this. The whole plan is so ingeniously put together, and then they come up with such an uninspired plot again. The compulsory dramatic part where Neeson informs the passengers about his misery and you see the embarrassed and sympathetic glances, was extremely clichéd. It seemed as if the lack of time made them come up with a quickly invented ending. Despite that it's still a nice thriller, but it won't leave a lasting impression.
"Congratulations.
You have been selected for the opportunity to take part in a one-of-a-kind game show!"
What would you do? You're sitting in your car, looking blankly around while waiting at a traffic light. You slowly begin to realize that your world is falling apart with you standing in the epicenter. Your dream to climb to a better position in the company where you work, was nipped in the bud by a sudden resignation because you are not enough ruthless and unfeeling. Your wife is pregnant and you're about to get married. You also have to take care of your mentally handicapped brother, which costs a lot of money. You have outstanding debts from your studies. And as icing on the cake, your aging "racist" father wants to move in with you. You come to the realization that your life is going to be a hell, since your future wife is an Afro-American.
And then suddenly you get a phone call from someone, telling you that you have been selected to participate in a simple game where you have to finish 13 tasks so you'll receive a lousy 6.2 million dollars. The first task for $ 1,000 is to swat a fly that's flying around in your car. I wouldn't think about it for one second and smash that damn fly till it's as flat as a pancake. And so did Elliot (Mark Webber). As a result he sees his bank account filled with the promised sum of money.
"13 Sins" is a horrifying thriller. You can see it coming that the following tasks aren't that obvious, but rather insane and they put Elliot all the time in a dilemma. Because if he doesn't perform the job, or explains the whole thing to someone or deliberately tries to sabotage the game, he's automatically disqualified and he loses the laboriously saved up money.
This movie is based on the popular Thai film made in 2006 by Chookiat Sakweerakul. Granted I haven't seen the original film, and probably there will be a multitude of supporters shouting loudly that this is an abomination of the original superb film. I have no idea if that's true, but I thought this was a decent film full of suspense and entertainment. Elliot is being confronted with the phenomenon of human weakness. He realizes that what he's doing isn't socially acceptable and yet he overcomes his distaste and disgust about his actions, because the goal in the end is so promising . Mark Webber (" Goodbye World") succeeds in showing those mixed feelings perfectly. You see his alter ego evolve from excited and enthusiastic, to disgusted and pronounced outraged. For me this was a great interpretation. He also has a certain charisma that makes you feel directly involved with his sad situation and he immediately arouses sympathy. Devon Graye also convinces as Michael, the mentally handicapped brother. At times it's terrifyingly real. A chatterbox who must take his pill on time and has fixed rituals like driving at a certain speed on a main road. To the annoyance of other road users.
Rutina Wesley is for the most part just an insignificant side character. Until the end. Then there's a defining moment in which the whole process could well restart. Looking at it afterwards, this is actually the key moment in the whole film. Ron Perlman, the chameleon in the film world, better known as "Hellboy", fits perfectly into the role of the dubious detective Chilcoat. His over-sized chin alone, makes an overwhelming impression.
The moment Chilcoat starts showing interest in the matter, leads to a rapidly succession of twists and finally ending up in a totally insane finish. The rapid pace at which the film is set, and the succession of lurid scenes, makes sure you can't think about the sense and nonsense of the whole thing. "13 Sins" isn't really a horror but rather a tight "to the point" thriller involving topics such as materialism and judgments, in an elevated manner, about the fate of others. A successful concept with occasional gore sections which were well appreciated.
"Death on the Nile" but in the present time and a little further to the south on the African continent namely Cape Town, the jewel of South Africa. A typical detective story in which two very different detectives are searching for the murderer of the daughter of a famous rugby player. Despite the many cliché's and typical characteristics of the two detectives, it has become a surprising film. Brooding, menacing, hard and intense. A dark and grim study in which the spirit of the old apartheid regime is still present.
"Zulu" closed the 66th edition of the Cannes Film Festival. It is an adaptation of the novel by Caryl Férey and made by the French director Jerome Salle. The opening scene immediately gives an indication of what you can expect. It's a black and white fragment. A flashback to 1978 at the time of the apartheid in which a small young kid witnesses how his father is burned alive. This little boy is Ali Sokhela (Forest Whitaker), one of the two detectives and head of "Cape Town's Serious Violent Crime Unit" who is in charge of the murder investigation. Later in the movie you get to see the sequel of this flashback. A grim and gruesome sequel which clarifies why Ali deals with his amorous bonding with a particular woman in a very special way.
The second detective Brian Epkeen is played by Orlando Bloom. A surprising rendition by Orlando who normally got well mannered and clean-shaves roles in previous movies. However Epkeen has a rugged image. He looks rather crumpled with a not so fresh and unshaven appearance. A womanizer who's always late for work and an emotional wreck with a failed marriage and a son he doesn't seem to care for. His son hates him like the plague. As a result he has a alcohol problem and he takes every opportunity to seduce a woman who crosses his path. A petulant and pedantic nuisance who does everything in his own way. And yet Ali believes in him and thinks he's a decent detective.
Ultimately "Zulu" is no more than a brutal police film with drugs, gangsters, corruption and again a pharmaceutical company involved. It's something less casual then "Starsky and Hutch", but the unfolding of the story follows a well known pattern. Whether or not there have been experiments to decimate the black population , I don't know, but it sounded pretty far-fetched in my ears. If it's authentic, then the regime was sicker than we can imagine.
The two protagonists were realistic portrayed. Forest Whitaker used again his "Droopy" expression and looked frighteningly thin. The traumatic past that he carries is constantly present and shown. However, Orlando Bloom made the biggest impression on me. A grim role he hasn't played before, but he still manages to shine quite successfully. I found the South African dialogs interesting. This emphasized the authenticity of this film.
South Africa is dark and gloomy in this film, full of poverty and hopelessness, full of hatred and resentment, so many things which can never be forgiven. Despite the sometimes beautiful images of the coast and the wealthier neighborhoods, the overall picture remains a depressing one. The explicit action ensures that it exceeds the average detective movie. And at times it's intensely exciting. The furious pace of the movie makes it a thrilling experience from start to finish.
Gabe Whyte (Rufus Sewell) is about to leave for a convention in Princeton by plane. He still plays a game of chess with his son Erol (Haley Joel Osment) and says goodbye to his wife Marika (Gillian Anderson) in a loving (surprising) way at the airport. But Gabe doesn't return and leaves his family lonely and broken behind. A not ended game of chess is a lasting memory of him.
About 12 years later after the mysterious disappearance of Gabe, we see Erol back as a mature 21 year old brainiac who excels in science and math. A gifted student who has probably inherited the genes from his family that consists entirely of academics and scientists. A traumatic event brings his grandfather Sal (Victor Garber) as far as to talk about the disappearance of his father and tells Erol his theory. Over the years Erol is more and more convinced that his father died. According to Sal, his son discovered an ability to travel back in time through so-called "wormholes" and wanted to meet Einstein in a parallel universe.
So "I'll follow you down" is about time traveling. It's certainly not easy to come up with an original movie about that since there are already unmentionable films about this phenomenon (Back to the Future, Looper, 12 Monkeys, Terminator, About Time, Déja Vu, ....) which are imbued with action to keep the attention of the audience in a grip. "I'll follow you down" focuses on the scientific and emotional part of time traveling. Despite the lack of action or excitement it remains an intriguing SF questioning again the well known complications. What impact does a change in the past have on your present life? Will your personal situation still be identical in both family and professional way? It's certainly not a flashy youthful SF adventure movie like "Back to the Future"! It's still pretty clever of the director Richie Mehta to cast famous faces for this low-budget indie SF . An "X-Files"-like story deserves someone like Gillian Anderson, who indeed didn't loose any of her good looks over the years. Haley Joel Osment who everyone knows as the endearing little boy who could see dead people in "The Sixth Sense" and who went looking for his real personality in "AI". Besides the fact that he has gained some weight and has a goatee, you can still discern that angelic look in that bigger face. He can still look so sad with those puppy eyes. Especially Anderson delivers a brilliant performance as the depressed wife who lost her eternal love and never got over this loss so she got psychiatric assistance over the years and kept going with medication. Osment went on with his life and build a life together with his childhood friend. The disinterested gaze while his mother talked about his father and their first encounter, says enough.
Unfortunately a big part of the film focuses on the relationships and what the possible consequences would be if Erol plans to travel to the past. Would it have an influence on his personal life ? The making of the time machine is limited to showing a welding mask, complicated mathematical formulas of quantum physics on a board and a small portion of a kind of diving bell. The display of the ultimate time travel itself is fairly limited and was at the time in the episodes of "Dr. Who "much better portrayed. It also bothered me that after the 12-year period Erol changed a lot, while his mother and grandfather still had the same appearance. Quite unbelievable.
It's not an action packed movie but has nicely detailed character studies and a terrible dilemma Erol has to make a decision about. Ultimately, it's nothing more than a family drama in which the husband abandons his family, who are left behind with unanswered questions. In "I'll follow you down" he wasn't off to get cigarettes, after which he didn't return. He just got stuck somewhere in the past. This Canadian film should certainly not be considered as a failure, but still it missed something and there was still a dissatisfaction that bothered me. It was as if I've looked an episode about traveling by train and there wasn't even a fragment where you could see the train they were traveling with....
"Violence isn't the worst thing in the world.
What is then?
Apathy."
I'm sure that some movie critics of reputable newspapers ("The Guardian" and the like) and magazines are awful, out-of-touch guys, who pine away on a dusty attic avoiding any contact with other human individuals. Pessimists who cringe at the sign of a bit of emotions and sugar-sweet feelgood moods and hide like a slug that encounters a grain of salt on her path. The result is an allergic reaction of disgust and aversion, after which they begin to spit their guts and criticize the targeted object. Is "The Book of Henry" really overly-sentimental? Is it so sugary that your blood glucose levels suddenly go berserk? Is it so un-freakin-believable that a Jerry Springer show looks like a realistic show? And does the second part of the movie about revenging a child molester feel extremely exaggerated? Maybe yes. However, calling this film the biggest crap of the year, demonstrates shortsightedness and empathy similar to that of a mummified Egyptian pharaoh.
Whatever they claim, "The Book of Henry" is an amiable and entertaining evening filler. Something I'm yearning for after an endless series of nerve-racking or extremely serious movies where you need to stay focused, so you won't lose the thread after another plot-twist. I admit I watched the first chapter with more pleasure than the second chapter. Not because of the acting. But content-wise it was sometimes a bit too much and after a while it lost a bit of its credibility. For instance. I doubt you can buy a high-tech sniper rifle in the U.S. just by saying some obscure name and waving with a bundle of dollar bills. Let's skip the formalities! And someone calling the authorities after seeing an emotional performance of a ballet dancer, was quite bizarre. Especially when bruises and the timid behavior of the girl herself (plus Henry's testimonies) didn't ring any bells before.
You can say the film is kind of bizarre. Not only because of the family situation in which the Carpenter family finds itself. That's already extremely strange. Also the sudden twist in the middle of the story is bit of uncommon. Not often a main character leaves the story so early. Even though he isn't completely out of the picture. And that's why I'm talking about two chapters. The "pre" and "post" Henry period. Perhaps the mix of genres is a cause for criticism. At first, it looks like an innocent youth movie. Then it goes from a melodrama to a thriller with a revenge motive. Granted, that might be too much as well.
I enjoyed the acting the most. Jaeden Lieberher as bright Henry. A young boy looking at the world with very different eyes due to his unimaginable intelligence and at the same time he's still like an average, everyday boy. The way in which he confronts his classmates with the real facts is both sobering as extremely funny. Lieberher plays this with seemingly little effort. A brilliant mind but played in such a way that he remains human. Only I thought that his cartoonish machine he designed, using wires, hammers and wooden mechanisms, was quite contradictory to his high intellectual abilities. Naomi Watts (gorgeous role in "Demolition" by the way) is a known quantity, although she's acted of the screen a bit by her dominant son and all she seems to be doing is hitting the buttons on her PS4 controller. Even in the second chapter, Henry is holding her hand and is in charge of everything. But especially Jacob Tremblay, as the younger brother Peter, really surprised me. Not because of his impact on the story. But the professionalism he displays in shaping his personality. A likable and highly amusing character. Maddie Ziegler knew how to play the emotionally broken neighbor girl in a sublime way. A rendition in which the repressed emotions impressed more than Henry's occasional hyper-kinetic behavior.
Perhaps it's my age that makes me more melancholic and I'm touched much faster. However, I think most viewers approach this movie in a wrong way. I read somewhere that Henry's preconceived plan (which he has worked out in detail in his red booklet) is the opposite of his intellectual ability. A burst in his wisdom because it's revenge he's after. However, perhaps this was the only solution he could come up with after deductive and analytical reasoning. How does anyone react when witnessing that a criminal offense goes unpunished? And legal measures don't have the desired effect? Perhaps it takes more time for average intelligent people to come to the same conclusion.
I'm afraid I'm the only one with a positive opinion about this movie. Apparently, I like to root for the underdogs among movies. I'm sure that critics and opponents of "The book of Henry" will say that Trevorrow, after this cinematic adventure, delivered better work in the more realistic blockbuster "Episode IX". Even if he would add a scene with Chewbacca, Han Solo and Luke Skywalker dancing the can-can, these experts of stories on celluloid will probably approve it and claim that the man has added a willful interpretation to the Star Wars story. But he mustn't give in to willfulness when it comes to other movies (grinding teeth intonation). I am pleased that rebellious movies like "The Book of Henry" are made in Hollywood and not only the sometimes saltless crap that's being released. Because those are the movies where I say "Well, this was a great movie" when it's finished.
Either Venice Beach in L.A. is a tiny place at the ocean. Or Bruce Willis knows how to move around with incredibly speed. Because the pace at which he pops up in different places is impressive. Fortunately, it's not full naked on a skateboard the whole time, because that wasn't a pretty sight. Just like Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Aftermath", you can see that aging is getting to Bruce Willis. The result is a set of not so tight buttocks. But they are still muscular enough to clamp a revolver in between.
"Once upon a time in Venice" is a fairly chaotic story where Steve Ford (Bruce Willis), a private detective who solves ludicrous cases most of the time, gets into a lot of trouble when his dog is being stolen by a local gang. Well, John Wick also shot a bunch of gangsters, after they've killed his cute little dog. Proof that you should be careful with dog owners. Before Steve realizes it, he needs to fulfill a few assignments to get his dog back. And trust me, a few of those clients look and act absolutely weird.
Despite the satirical mood and some highly amusing characters, the whole story isn't so impressive. Perhaps it was their intention to make an action comedy, but unfortunately the humorous section was quite disappointing and the action part was limited to a number of skirmishes in the end. To be honest, for once, it's the enthusiasm of Bruce Willis's acting that surprised me. In this movie he doesn't have that uninterested, tired look and nonchalant attitude as he demonstrated before in a few meaningless films. No, once again you could see him appear with his sympathetic, cheerful look while quoting a few one-liners (though they weren't really witty). This time it felt as if the paycheck wasn't the main reason for him to participate in this film. The movie poster reminded me immediately of "The Last Boy Scout". Come to think of it. Wasn't he planning to buy a dog for his wife in that movie as well? In all probability a coincidence, I guess.
Personally I thought John Goodman (Did he loose weight?) stole the show as Steve's sidekick. His character looks as if he came straight out of "The Big Lebowski". A peculiar person and owner of a surf shop whose life is riding a fatalistic roller-coaster because of a messy divorce. But the moment he takes part in the action, as Steve's partner, he's as happy as a pig in shoes. The surprised look on his face when he sees Steve's weapon arsenal, is comparable to his overall performance. It's as if John Goodman didn't really know why he was in this movie in the first place. Which made it even more funny. Also Jason Momoa (last seen in "Bad Batch" playing an interesting role) did a great job. On the one hand, a lame persiflage-like part. But because it was greatly exaggerated, it became funny as well. And in between, you'll see a Jewish real estate owner called "Lew the Jew" (Adam Goldberg), who's troubled by a fanatic graffiti artist who paints explicit pornographic artwork on his buildings.
I often felt embarrassed about certain scenes while watching this movie. On the one hand, it was fun to see Bruce Willis acting with visible pleasure and without scruples. On the other hand, there were also some awkward performances to admire and the humorous level wasn't comparable to what Willis had done in the past. Perhaps it was a movie unworthy of such an actor as Bruce Willis, but compared to the other monstrosities he appeared in in the recent past, this comedy/action movie was still a little bit of an improvement.
"Maybe for you there's a tomorrow.
Maybe for you there's 1,000 or 3,000 or 10.
So much time you can bathe in it.
So much time you can waste it.
But for some of us,there's only today.
And what you do today matters."
Damn time loops. Bill Murray got stuck in one in "Groundhog Day" and could escape it by surrendering to love. And Tom Cruise had a less pleasant loop in "Edge of tomorrow". He died every time during an alien invasion. Samantha (Zoey Deutch) faces the same problem. A night out with her friends Lindsay (Halston Sage), Ally (Cynthy Wu) and Elodie (Medalion Rahimi) ends in a disastrous way, after which she wakes up on "Cupid's Day" over and over again. "Cupid's Day" is that time of year when youngsters in school give each other roses to show their love.
If these bosom friends would bury themselves with red roses, nobody would really be surprised. Because these narcissistic glamour tarts are living in an egocentric, artificial cocoon, where there's only room for their stuck-up personalities. A life of perfection and complacency in which the other less-favored (both financially and in appearance) are criticized and mocked. These arrogant girls don't even realize that they aren't so popular just because of their looks, but largely thanks to their rich parents. This allows them to distinguish themselves from others materialistically. Driving a car of a somewhat more expensive class. Parading with Louis Vuitton handbags and exclusive clothes.
"Before I fall" fails in two areas. First of all, it's not very original. As I said before, it's a kind of variation on "Groundhog day". Except that the latter also had some comic situations. This film tackles the issue more seriously and has a much more important message on a moral level. And secondly, it's highly predictable. Once you know what's really going on and the facts are slowly revealed, you already know what will happen and what Samantha needs to do to break the cycle. You can even mumble the last sentence simultaneously with Samantha without a problem. As expected, Samantha walks through various emotional stages. From amazement and despair to fear and anger. Ending via a rebellious, fatalistic phase into getting the revelation where she suddenly realizes (although she has experienced that day already a thousands times) how she can solve the problem.
It's kind of weird. I'm not really a fan of chic flicks. But because of the cyclic aspect and the sophisticated analysis of the different personalities, this high school drama was still fascinating. The interpretations also surprised me in a way. You can't say those girls are sympathetic, but gradually their intricate characters are revealed and you start to pity them. Especially Deutch delivered a brilliant performance. She looks like a fragile doll. A kind of "Holly Hobbie"-like Gillian Anderson. A lovely girl with an innocent appearance. You don't see her as an arrogant, hateful and selfish person. The rest of the ladies are cut from the same cloth with their specific deep-rooted emotional issues. I hope they aren't so vicious in reality.
The ultimate life lesson in the end is quite obvious. It may be a bit of an exaggerated arthritis-causing waving with the index finger in a moralistic way, but ultimately it's a truism. Perhaps some individuals in this world should focus more on the important things of life, instead of merely being busy with their own status. However, the "I" culture and social pressure are such that it's almost impossible for young people to see this. Perhaps this film should be added to the school curriculum used nowadays. However, I can imagine that some of those like-minded girls are shocked when they see the denouement. Shocked about Samantha's fate. But most probably they are happily giggling again the next day while bullying the lesser beauties. Oh well. But remember girls: "Karma is a bitch!".
"Why did you stab your friend? For the greater good.I'm a hero."
"Uwantme2killhim?" is based once again on true events. And yet afterwards I doubted whether this was indeed a true story, because this mysterious and quite ingeniously put together story seemed unlikely. In retrospect this ought to be a film adaptation of a real life situation in 2003 in Manchester. In fact, I just can't tell anything about this film because it would reveal too much. It's a clever devised scheme and again it shows the dangers and the dark side of the internet. The world wide web (and the used applications in those days) was still in its infancy. It looked a bit primitive and nobody really worried about security. Neither did Mark (Jamie Blackley) who used an MSN-stylish chat program on a daily base where he had a sort of cyber-relationship with Rachel (Jamie Winstone). The judge in this case expressed it as follows : "Skilled writers of fiction would struggle to conjure up a plot such as that which arises here". And this statement is really not exaggerated. You can safely describe it as the most perfect staged suicide.
Mark virtually lost his heart to Rachel, someone he has never met before and whose home situation isn't too rosy. Mark however is Mr. Popular at school: charming, smooth, handsome and intelligent. He's such a teenager with whom everyone wants to be friends and all girls fall in love with. This in contrast to John (Toby Regbo), Rachel's brother, who's constantly bullied and also looks like a meager, pathetic and timid boy. At the insistence of Rachel, Mark extends his umbrella over John and gradually a strange relationship grows between the two teenagers. The moment Rachel disappears and John comes around with the statement that she was killed by her boyfriend Kevin (Mingus Johnston), Mark is determined to take revenge. And then MI5 appears on the scene in the person of Janet (Liz White) who should stay away from Kevin and also claims that Mark is suited to be a secret agent. Now it all seems to be completely unbelievable.
The two protagonists left an undeniable, impressive impression. Blackley and Regbo fit perfectly in their roles. Blackley as the ever popular and determined teenager who's out for revenge. And Regbo as the pathetic outcast who's unable to maintain social contacts (except probably anonymous on the internet). He reminded me of Toby from Harry Potter. That same sad look. Two opposites that fit perfectly together: the tough one opposite the weakling who needs to be protected for others and especially himself. Although the story seems impossible, Douglas manages to make a fascinating film. This thanks to the pursued pace and the use of flashbacks.
"Uwantme2killhim?" is, despite its being set in the corny era in the history of the internet, still relevant and shows the consequences of using internet without parental supervision (now I sound old-fashioned) and how an individual can be moved to commit ill deeds in a shrewd and manipulative way. It's not quality cinema, but intriguing enough with a surprising denouement. In conclusion you can say it's something frightening and worrying that can happen in the glory days of todays social networking.
"We had a deal. And where I come from, a deal is a deal."
It's so much fun to watch a movie in which two individuals chase each other and a cat and mouse game begins resulting in a battle to the death. Recently we saw two Hollywood stars try this theme in "Killing Season". It wasn't exactly an impressive film and after a while the ping-pong game between the two opponents started to irritate. For "Beyond the reach" an old class act of Hollywood was recruited. Only this time it's a unilateral hunt pattern that's being showed here. Unfortunately, the film collapses like a failed soufflé at the end. For once it's something that most film critics unanimously agree with. This time there are no diametrically opposed camps with contrarian views. This film had a promising start with chilling tension and an acclaimed chemistry between the two main characters. But the absurd and completely messed up ending screwed it completely and made absolutely no sense.
Madec (Michael Douglas) is a pedantic rich man with an arrogant attitude, who acts as if the whole universe turns around his own little person. He arrives in a tiny village along the Mojave desert to hunt a bighorn (probably a missing trophy on the wall). Ben (Jeremy Irvine) is hired for this task. He's a young guy who's well known as the best tracker in that environment. Before you know it, they are on the move in a giant fairground attraction on 6 wheels (worth $ 500,000 and imported) equipped with satellite telephone, espresso machine, microwave oven and a remote-controlled music system. Madec has spared no expense for this trip and is also equipped with a Steyr Scout 308 imported from Austria. In retrospect, he's also quite generous when it appears that he doesn't really have a permit to shoot down the rare animal. Madec is a typical snob who thinks everything is for sale. Until the hunt ends in a catastrophe and he accidentally shoots the local desert dweller Charlie. Charlie is someone Ben knew for a long time already and probably learned him some tricks of survival and how to live in the wilderness. How it proceeds can be guessed easily. Ben suddenly becomes the hunted one in this relentless, scorching desert.
The last movie I've watched with Douglas starring in, is "Last Vegas". Overall this wasn't a bad film and I watched it with pleasure. Yet Douglas fits better in a role as a charismatic manipulator and overwhelming bastard. A role as in "Falling Down" or "Fatal Attraction". It was a pleasure to see him again shining as a sadistic,unassailable bad ass. Irvine also meets the expectations and apparently spent several hours in the gym. His upper body is more muscular than the one he showed in "The railway man." His character stands in stark contrast to that of Douglas. An orphaned young man whose girlfriend just left him to start her studies at the university and for whom everyday life is financially more difficult than that of Madec. His battle against the elements in the desert was realistic and proved again he owns some excellent acting skills. Also the people of the makeup department deserve a pat on the shoulder.
The highlight of the film is undeniably the acting of Douglas. The sadistic game that he plays in the sweltering desert and how he enjoys seeing his prey slowly but surely reaching the end, is absolutely top notch acting. The absolute worst part is the denouement. Not that it's inconceivable (because everything can be bought with money), but it's so abrupt. An excellent movie with an intriguing interplay that's being performed for more than an hour, is being reduced into a pale third-rate thriller in sheer 10 minutes. Was there a plausible ending, than this would have been a masterful film.
"No matter what happens up there, I don't want the word "Hooters" coming out of your mouth."
Is your mood not that positive and you've lost your faith in things, then I advise you to go and watch this movie, because this is a feel-good movie of the first rank. After watching this "everything-is-possible" movie, maybe you're going to realize that things aren't that bad and that for every hopeless situation there's a solution. You should only believe in it and grab every opportunity with both hands. Nothing seems impossible as long as you don't waste your perseverance. Voila, thus the positive tone of this film has been set. It's a film that contains all the ingredients needed to make some kind of Disney-like story in which a group of students without a future (and some without identity) and looked at as outcasts and hopeless underdogs, have to compete against individuals who have everything and whose future looks promising. Without much effort you can mention countless movies dealing with the struggle of the weak against the strong (like "The Karate Kid", "October Sky", "The Blind Side", "Forrest Gump", "Major League" ...)
"Spare Parts" also belongs in this list. Young people of Mexican descent, most undocumented, are attending a high school in Phoenix and being assisted by passionate teachers and an enthusiastic director (Jamie Lee Curtis), despite their sometimes desperate situation, so they can obtain a proper education. Fredi Cameron (George Lopez), an engineer, is apparently desperately looking for a job and therefore applies for the vacant position as temporary science teacher. At the insistence of Oscar (Carlos Pena Vega), who due to the lack of a birth certificate can't enlist in the US Army, Fredi accompanies a group of students to compete in a national robot competition against renowned universities such as MIT and Virginia Tech.
The sad thing about such "underdog-contending-with-a-superior-group" films, is that the outcome is already known before the film started. An additional issue covered in this film is the problem of people living illegally in the USA. The constant threat of being arrested and deported, is regularly brought up. Furthermore, the known clichés aren't eschewed either. The sympathetic teacher who acts as a father figure and apparently suffers of a trauma out of the past (although this is not really explained in detail in this film). The romance that blossoms between him and fellow teacher Marisa Tomei (Gwen Kolinsky), a single mother who also happens to know a bit of programming. The animosity between the young people that slowly turns into an intense friendship. And of course the ultimate denouement which is so obvious. Although I had to restrain myself from spontaneously bursting into an applause. But that's usually the objective of such a movie.
Certainly you can't say this film is truly original, but the performances are admirable. The diversity of the teenagers and their array of talents ensure both funny and heartfelt moments. Maybe at times a little bit too corny. Oscar is the driven leader. Christian (David Del Rio) is the intellectual who has a proper scientific solution for every problem posed. Lorenzo (Jose Julian) is the electronics specialist and Hector (JR Villarreal) is not the brightest of them all but surely is useful when it comes to lifting things. Both the interaction between these characters and the way they build a prototype with cheap material and spare parts (even tampons solve a problem) creates humorous moments. And I thought Jamie Lee Curtis was a surprise as a supporting act. A director who uses non-conventional methods for running a school. Brilliant at times.
"Spare Parts" certainly isn't a blockbuster and will appear in the VOD circuit. It's no more than a TV movie based on a true story, as so many movies have already been broadcasted. The most captivating moment was when Jamie Lee Curtis announced the results via the intercom, and you see that nobody is really listening. A brief moment so meaningful : a school community where certain individuals do well-intentioned efforts and you realize that this school community show no interest in it at all. Fortunately, it's not always like that !
"They disobeyed a direct order.
She buried her husband.
No, Karine, it's not that.
They don't trust me.
And they don't trust me for the same reason the company didn't trust me … to lead this mission."
I never thought I would ever ask the following question: "Mr. Scott, could you draw a line under the whole Alien franchise and concentrate on other projects? Please?". As an "Alien" fan of the first hour, I was deeply disappointed about this film. In hindsight I thought "Exodus : Gods and Kings" was even better. It's best they forget about "Alien : Covenant Sequel" which is scheduled to appear in 2019.
I was actually more excited about "Prometheus" than about this creation. I ignored the whole fuss about the religious and existential aspects in "Prometheus". In my opinion "Prometheus" was a relief after the disastrous parts III and IV of the "Alien" saga. Admittedly, the xenomorphs weren't omnipresent in "Prometheus". But the graphics were unprecedented and made my SF heart race again. Scott brought a breath of fresh wind in this SF horror. In "Alien: Covenant" it's more like a used wind. On the one hand, the functional goal of this film is the cause of this. After all, it's just a bridge between the "Prometheus" project and the older "Alien" work. But on the other hand, it's the ease with which this movie is made that lies at the base. Because ultimately it's nothing but a recycling of old material.
In "Prometheus" a spacecraft was launched into space to search for the so-called creators ("Engineers") of humanity. In the end, they discover that these creators want to wipe their creations of the table. The end of the film shows a glimpse of creatures that cause death and destruction in the "Alien" saga afterwards.
Now we see the spacecraft "Covenant", loaded with colonists and embryos, which (as in "Passengers") is heading for a planet in another solar system to set up a new colony. Until the ship is hit by a "neutrino burst" and the crew is shaken roughly out of their artificial sleep. When one of the crew members receives a signal from John Denver's "Take me home" during a repair, they set course to the origin of the signal without hesitation. And thus they end up on a planet with similar living conditions as on Earth. Moreover, they find traces of a previous landing.
Despite the fact that "Alien: Covenant" is no more than a link between the "Prometheus" narrative and the original first episode, this movie started promising. In retrospect, however, it's nothing more than a rehashing of previously used ideas. Even the numerous Aliens didn't impress me. The aggressive and intimidating look of the space monster in the first films ensured some terrifying movie moments. In this film, they weren't exactly very intelligent and far from slimy. The only original twist in this film was the side those creatures chose to burst out of a human body this time.
As a die-hard fan of the Alien saga, I was waiting impatiently (even though I'm not in favor of prequels and sequels) for this new episode and I was also expecting big things. Therefor it's a great disappointment when I saw how such an original and infamous epic story was reduced to the level of a meaningless, brain-dead soap purely based on commercial considerations.
Even though the visual aspect was of an unprecedented level (after all Ridley Scott was holding the reins) and the first half hour (despite the cliché content) was promising, I came to the conclusion that the obtained result was shamefully bad. The Aliens weren't terrifying and at one point they looked like the Velociraptors from "Jurassic Park". Some scenes were basically moronic. And be honest, Katherine Waterston will never be able to match Ripley's masterly played character. The only plus and admirable part was the double role of Michael Fassbender.
When are they going to realize in Hollywood when a sequel to a successful film has nothing significantly contribute to the story and just simply repeats parts of the original (repackaged), one can better refrain from this release. But I get it. The movie has gained a loyal crowd of fans who look forward to any new episode. It doesn't matter how bad it is, there'll always be a huge audience to check it out. In most cases this enthusiasm is being followed by disillusion. There are countless other examples. From "Die Hard" to "Terminator". Or take a look at "Beverly Hills cop", "Nightmare on Elm street" and "Home alone".
The pilot film is sensational and unique. In some cases, the sequel offers added value and is highly entertaining. But from then on, it usually goes downhill. There's nothing great about these sequels. The only reason for their existence is pure commercial. Shame on you Mr. Scott. To be honest, I never expected you to fall for that.
"I mean it's more tactical.
This isn't an attack.
This is an invasion."
There's one thing this film surprised me with. And that's the speed at which the violence begins. One moment Lucy (Brittany Snow) walks with her boyfriend through a subway station. The next moment, he's lying dead next to her and in the background you can hear the sound of automatic guns and screaming people in panic. Turns out a war started in this part of New York. A kind of American Civil War in guerrilla style. The sound effects and the way in which the camera follows fleeing Lucy looks a lot like a third person shooter. Even Lucy's sister Belinda (Angelic Zambrana) thought the neighbors were playing "Call of Duty" all the time.
It's only when Lucy is rescued by Stupe (Dave Bautista), a concierge with a military background, this realistic looking film turns into a survival journey through a suburban district of New York. Immediately I had to think of movies like "No Escape". But also of older hit-movies such as "Escape from New York" and the magnificent film "Warriors". A turbulent flight through neighborhoods where street gangs suddenly take up arms against the forces who try to take over Bushwick and punks who take advantage of the lawlessness to rob neighborhood stores. And all this looks as if it's filmed in one take.
The reason why those troops are penetrating this neighborhood and total anarchy breaks out, sounds quite ridiculous and unlikely the first instance. But thinking further about it afterwards, you could say it isn't. Such a situation could occur somewhere in the world, given the interracial and domestic conflicts that arise everywhere. But apart from this original approach, this film has little to offer. The rest of it is just about the two main characters trying to escape the violence in a city that looks like a battlefield. Even the noisy and rebellious looking local residents who are waving with their illegal weapons excitedly, don't make it more interesting. Although some of them were in a high stage of enthusiasm.
In addition to the fact that it's all simplistic and there aren't really surprising developments, there were also some things that were quite annoying. For example, the continuous mumbling of Dave Bautista almost the entire movie. Besides the emotional closing argument, his oral contribution was limited. He resembled Rambo who also mumbled the whole movie in those days. And although he seems to have a lot of military experience, he continuously refused to use more sophisticated firearms. I've lost count of the number of times I got pissed because they ignored modern automatic guns, which were lying around for the taking. They stubbornly held on to their small handguns. I would have known better.
I'm not sure if it was the intention to make a political statement. If so, they didn't quite succeed in doing that. Before you know it they shifted back to making a superficial action film with Jews jumping around with Uzi's. In general, the acting isn't so bad. Brittany Snow is doing her best as an emerging survival expert. Dave Bautista's posture is very suitable for playing the character Stupe. His physique and rough-hewn behavior makes an extremely dangerous neanderthal of him (mumbling included). And if you're looking for a movie with a denouement so non-compliant compared to the rest, don't look any further. Believe me. So, "Bushwick" isn't special, but you don't need survival skills to watch it entirely.
"Max, hide the beers. I mean, who gives a sh*t, man. The whole 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 load 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 angry 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.
"Send a car for my wife and flowers. And by flowers, I mean whatever it takes to keep me off the couch tonight."
Take any "Jason Bourne" episode, mix it with lets say a "Mission Impossible" or recently "Stratton" and add a little bit of humor. As a result you'll get something similar as "Unlocked". So, it isn't exactly original. It's entertaining, but it's also an inextricable tangle of intrigues. At one point you're wondering who can be trusted and who can't be. The film fits in perfectly with today's news. Every few months there's a terrorist attack by some extremist organization in Europe. I just hope this film won't cause some crack-brained organizations to get bad ideas.
Maybe it's me, but at times I didn't have a clue what the people concerned were talking about. Apparently, your level of intelligence should be very high to be able to function in the world of intelligence services as a secret agent. Sometimes conclusions are drawn and decisions are made at such a scary rate. The fight against terrorism is a difficult task for a reason. Is it possible that the vast majority of employees can't even follow the reasoning of their superior?
Noomi Rapace, who impressed me more in "Child 44" than in "Prometheus", is playing the experienced agent Alice Racine, who has a conscience problem after a terrorist attack in Paris. Due to an enormous guilt-feeling she leaves her job at MI5. And now she works for a social service which she uses as a cover to signal suspicious developments to MI5. Until she's summoned one day to question a terrorist suspect to get information about a planned attack. But soon, she realizes she got caught up in a hornet's nest where nobody can be trusted and with an impossible task waiting for her. On the one hand, she has to make sure she stays out of the hands of another organization with an entirely different agenda. And on the other hand, it's a race against the clock to make sure London won't suffer a chemical attack. Yes, it isn't boring for Alice.
The story on its own is actually a mess and sometimes quite difficult to follow. If you are a spy-thriller enthusiast and you have already seen a lot of movies from this genre, you won't find novelties that'll overwhelm you. The whole movie is a series of chases, short-lived but energetic action scenes and high-tech espionage behind the scenes. But, above all, the huge amount of plot turns will make it rather laughable than surprising. I would not even have been surprised if at the end the imam was an accomplice of some kind of candid camera program who announces that it was all just a joke. That's the level I'm talking about.
What else is there to admire? The performances of acclaimed famous film stars? The Swedish Noomi Rapace is perfect for this part as the female Jason Bourne. An intelligent, cold-blooded person who knows how to handle herself in this hard-core spy world. They were even able to convince Michael Douglas to play a small but not so insignificant role. The least impressive role was given to Orlando Bloom, who tries to bring some humor into the film with his heavy English accent and attitude. However, it is John Malkovich who steals the show as CIA chief Bob Hunter. His facial expression, that seemingly nonchalant smile and a moment of uncontrolled behavior during a video conference. A clear proof that one needs to be a bit insane to work for the intelligence service. But despite the excellent acting and the stars who appear on the screen, this movie can't avoid to get the label "mediocrity". It's just another spy thriller which is momentary entertaining but eventually will be forgotten.
"Imagine you were born totally aware and conscious of everything around you. Conscious you were coming out of someone else's body. Joined to it by a bloody cord that you are completely covered in blood. Conscious of the dry air entering your lungs for the first time. The sharp sounds in your ears. The blinding light in your eyes. Conscious that your bones are unbearably soft and your life is so fragile, it could disappear at any moment. That's what being resurrected is like."
Perhaps the initial idea of Marc Jarvis (Tom Hughes) wasn't so bad. The moment he hears he's terminally ill and only has a few months to live, he decides to get himself cryogenically preserved. In other words, he'll turn into a Popsicle. Not forever. Only until the medical world is capable to heal him from his disease, after which he can lead a healthy life again. A great idea but with one disadvantage. And that's something Marc is going to find out afterwards. The downside is that you leave your loved ones behind as well. And it might be that the spirit of the age has changed drastically. Physically, you may be in first-class condition, but the mental state might be a problem.
"Realive" is a grade-A SF with its "Oblivion"-like interiors and appearance. At the same time, it also raises a deep-philosophical topic about eternal life and postponing death. It's not a futuristic machine like in "Elysium" that fixes imperfections and medical problems. It's the evolution of medical technologies which makes it possible to perform medical interventions in an adequate way. But as the movie progresses, you notice that the movie contains a sophisticated romantic story as well. A story about a complicated relationship in which an eternal love is hidden. Marc and Naomi (Oona Chaplin) are having an on-again, off-again relationship for years now. And just as they come to the conclusion that they are made for each other, a deadly disease is the party pooper. From then on they know there's no future for them as a happy, elderly couple.
The film is fascinating enough but also extremely slow. Most of the film takes place in a clinically white, state-of-the-art facility where Marc awakens from his cryogenetic sleep. Not that he's physically the same as in the past, because a lot of his body is being reconstructed with cloned bones, muscles and nerves. Only his brains and some vital organs are retained. He's also connected to a high-tech device using a kind of umbilical cord. His new mechanical mother so to say. And thanks to the "Mind writer" he's able to save parts of his memories. So be prepared to see a lot of flashbacks about his youth and the chaotic relationship with Naomi.
Ultimately, you can say this movie is a modern "Romeo and Julia meets Frankenstein". A film that deals with eternal love and the resurrection of a comatose person. I recently saw "The Lazarus effect" which had a kind of identical subject. Only the imaging of future medical techniques and treatments are created in a very convincing and realistic way. Unfortunately for Marc, emotional relationship between individuals in this futuristic world isn't the same anymore. Eroticism and love are banished to foolish work-groups and are seen as something banal and unnecessary. I'm sure he didn't expect that to happen. Both the outstanding performances of Tom Hughes and Charlotte Le Bon as caring nurse Elizabeth, as the philosophical moral, make "Realive" an engaging and emotional film at the same time. Maybe it's indeed better for an individual's existence to be limited to one particular era. Physiological issues can be circumvented and improved. It's the mental state that can cause problems. So don't expect a happy end in this movie.
"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.
There are some films that,despite having such a miserable long playing time, won't bore you quickly.However,there are films which have a regular playing time and still bore you to death.In the first category I include "The Lord of the Rings","The Wolf of Wall Street" and "The Shawshank Redemption".You can add this one,which takes about 165 minutes,to this list,because this is a breathtaking and fascinating masterpiece.A musical journey told in the form of a fairy tale,that grabs you by the throat in the beginning and releases you when the credits start.I'm not really a jazz enthusiast or a piano recitals specialist,but it aroused my musical curiosity.Sometimes it feels as if you are getting musical education and you're actually continuously looking at some virtuosic piano playing like in "Grand Piano".There is however a big difference with the latter.And that's the fact that you stay intrigued and want to watch further so you can see how it unfolds.And you don't need toothpicks so your eyes stay open.It's not a recent film, but there was somebody who was praising this movie on some web page and I had to see it.
The whole story is told from the perspective of Max Tooney (Pruitt Taylor Vince) who played brass trumpet along with a legendary pianist in an orchestra on a cruise ship called "The Virginian".This legendary pianist once was abandoned by some poor immigrants and was left to be found in the class of the wealthier passengers, probably to ensure his future,but was eventually discovered and adopted by Danny Boodmann (Bill Nunn),a coal-man in the engine room.The young boy was named Danny Boodmann T.D. Lemon Nineteen Hundred.Or just plain simply 1900, his year of birth.To avoid problems with certain instances 1900 lived deep in the hull of the cruise ship, until the day Danny died.Then he suddenly disappears.Until he reappears one night,sitting behind a piano and playing it in a wonderful way.He'll become the most virtuoso fabulous pianist in the world who doesn't have the courage to set foot on shore.
It's directed by Giuseppe Tornatore and is based on the monologue Novecento of the writer Alessandro Baricco.Overall,I thought there were three major chapters in this film.The first part can be described as "Oliver Twist on The Titanic".The same atmosphere and guidance as in Titanic,but without an iceberg anywhere so the crossing to America was completed without a hitch and one could behold the Statue of Liberty after arrival. A kind of Walt Disney part where the first years of 1900 were told in an amusing way. The second part is the largest and most musical part. A series of musical interludes, including the piano duel against Jelly Roll,"The man who invented jazz" as people said,and 1900.Ennio Morricone provided the musical frame.So you know that this is a guarantee for masterful pieces of music.The third part is the most philosophical and tragicomic area.The attempt that Max is doing to get 1900 to leave the old cruise ship before it gets demolished.Three chapters which flow into each other fluently.In the beginning it alternates between the past and the present by means of flashbacks.An engaging,comical and touching film that continues to fascinate and amaze.
Tim Roth,who I recently saw starring in "Broken" and also has an impressive resume on his name,takes care of the lead role as the adult 1900.I think he's a wonderful actor who just has an innate calmness, interspersed with a truly sad, melancholic posture and gaze.The childish amazement about everyday things and the otherworldliness are expressed by him in a simple,unaffected way.He seems like a humble, timid and kind person,until he uses a heartfelt "asshole".A pianist who uses his emotions and the observed characteristics of people in his piano playing and only lives for his music. During a recording that was made by a music company,which would make him world famous and very rich,you can hear the tone and atmosphere of his piano performance slowly turn into a very intimate timbres merely by the appearance of a lovely lady.Even the deep philosophical reasoning in the end sounded acceptable, although 1900 didn't enjoy academic education.He gave a simplistic though rational explication about his state of mind and fear of the unknown.
Pruitt Taylor Vince takes on the role of Max,the lone musician who is forced to sell his instrument.He wasn't really known to me.When I read his biography,he seemed to have made quite a furore in the years 80-90. He has won an Emmy for his role in "Murder One".It looks as if he has been forgotten a bit and only played small parts in some other films.Probably those parts were so small that I can't even remember them.All in all I found him fitting for this part although there was sometimes a case of overacting and he wasn't really in sync with the rudderless ship during the storm as he was wobbling all over the place.This stormy scene was for me rather too dramatic and slapstick-like.Pretending to be seasick,swaying back and forth and doing the waltzing dance while sitting behind the piano.
Although this film is appropriate for it,it still didn't become an overly grand Hollywood spectacle.It was sometimes overwhelming and impressive.The moment someone sees the Statue of Liberty and the whole ship starts waving with handkerchiefs and everybody is shouting out of intense joy (while the upper class sticks to a polite subdued applause) was the first goosebumps moment. After the umpteenth time however,despite the successful comedic approach in the end,it was a bit too much.Also the piano duel was a highlight where it was indisputable that 1900 played in such a way that it looked like he was playing with four hands (and the highlight of the smoldering cigarette of course).Yet at one time I had reached a saturation point.A superb duel and brilliant expressions,but still it was excessively long.But these tiny remarks don't outweigh the greatness of this film. Brilliant, excellent movie !
"A man would give entire nations to lift grief off his heart and yet, you cannot buy anything with grief, because grief is worthless."
This is a difficult movie to rate. I have mixed feelings about it. The first part is terribly tedious and boring. A series of hugely pretentious dialogues and incomprehensible philosophical reasoning. It is a montage of various fragmentary issues that make it difficult to sense the vibe of the movie and to understand what it's about. Also there are subjects used that were completely beside the point in my eyes (the erotic beginning for starters). Also the total absence of any explanation of how they ended up in this situation, makes it uneasy to follow the storyline.
Ridley Scott, of course known for his masterpieces "Blade Runner" and "Alien",didn't succeed in keeping up the momentum. You first need to endure a full hour to finally realize what the contents of the movie is and after that you can enjoy a rough settlement by the drug cartel. And that's the double feeling about this film. The first part gets a unsatisfactory grade. The second part is the counterbalance.
In terms of characters Brad Pitt tops them all. A savvy person with a reserved and confident attitude that apparently has everything well organized. When something starts to go wrong, he can disappear instantly and retire for the rest of his life. His white suit and Stetson on his long hair gives him a dignified appearance and a rebellious appearance at the same time. Michael Fassbender as "The Counselor" was convincing as a lawyer , but what the hell is he doing among those criminals ? He looks like a choirboy who will start to cry when slapped in his face. This is also something that is not really clear . How did he end up with the drug lord Reiner ? Is he also a kind of counselor as Tom Hagan in "The Godfather" ? I don't think so. He would earn enough money and wouldn't be involved in the drug deal that ultimately will bring him down. Money problems perhaps ? I don't think so either since he can travel all the way to Amsterdam to choose a diamond.
Javier Bardem was also brilliant as the eccentric Reiner. He looked just like a tanned Tom Jones. Cruz played only a minor role and she was just a religious prude naive woman who was constantly upset by the others. The only one I hated instantly, was Cameron Diaz. She is as hot as a typical non-functional oven and she's clearly getting older resulting in slight hanging skin at some places. Besides the fact that she plays a dual role in a sly way, she tries to shock sexually, with as highlight the sticky wet routine on the windshield of Reiner's car.
The story on its own is dead simple and it doesn't need 2 hours to be told. It took so miserable long because of the dialogues as mentioned earlier . It was terribly annoying after a while . Even with subtitles in English , it didn't make any sense to me sometimes. Everybody seemed like having an academically degree in languages. It seemed as if they had to transform every dialogue into an anthology of an intellectual high level with a lot of difficult words. Even the drug baron Reiner and someone from the drug cartel used those intricate descriptions. They sound so philosophical that I doubt they could understand themselves. A fragment of the Dutch diamond expert sounds as follows : "To partake of the stone's endless destiny, is that not the meaning of adornment? To enhance the beauty of the beloved is to acknowledge both her frailty and the nobility of that frailty. At our noblest, we announce to the darkness that we will not be diminished by the brevity of our lives.". Even after reading it three times again, i still can't understand the deeper meaning .
The most impressive scene was the liquidation of Brad Pitt. It was filmed fairly explicit and gruesome. The best dialogue was between Pitt and Fassbender about Snuff movies. The funniest thing was the fact that they twice used a joke that's often told here amongst friends. The one the motorcyclist told about the dog food. The second about the Pope in Mexico. Funny to experience that.
Final conclusion: an intricate dead boring first hour as a precursor to a quite impressive offensive end. Ultimately, on average, it is still not sufficient.
I must admit that I've actually never heard of Rob Zombie. Not as a musician and certainly not as a film producer. To my surprise, he has an impressive list of things he achieved musically for movies and in directing movies. Even "Haloween" and "Haloween II" were on that list. The list of musical contributions is even more impressive. But remembering names was never my strong point. But "The Lords of Salem" is not exactly a good reference for our dear friend Rob.
However I think this movie had all the right ingredients to become a great movie. Especially the first hour is really enjoyable with the gloomy and sometimes creepy atmosphere. The intro was a little bit of a disappointment, with the old witches dancing naked around a fire and chanting spellbinding lyrics. They really looked terrible. They looked a lot like paper pulp made hand puppets. But what can you expect when you read the following in the trivia on IMDb:. "There are no digital effects in the film". Yes that was obvious. Regardless of this small detail, this introduction gave me a feeling of expectation and I was hoping that this was the start of a creepy satanic movie with a pack of witches in the lead.
The next image is the taste-full butt of Sheri Moon Zombie, Rob's wife and in terms of female nudity worth while to look at, who plays a local DJ called Heidi, who recently kicked her drugs habit. At a sudden moment she receives an anonymous delivery of a vinyl record from the band "The Lords" and plays it at home. And then hell breaks loose. The next half hour I could only look in an approving way. The atmosphere was dark, menacing and subtly portrayed. The corridor with the ominous looking door at the end. The lamps that hung symmetrically in a row. The sudden appearances of naked wrinkled witches in the bathroom and the kitchen. All this resulted in a magnificent creepy feeling that could lead to a seemingly terrible end.
From then on it goes downhill for me. Heidi starts to get bizarre and abstract delusions. She lapses back into her addiction and puts us on a hallucinatory trip with bizarre images that gave me a "What the hell is this" feeling and several times I had to frown my forehead. A yeti-like monster that appears growling, ghost figures with gray waving masks (I guess it's a symbolic representation of fire-melted faces) ripping out her intestines, masturbating priests, Heidi doing a rodeo on a goat, Heidi dancing erotically with a KISS impersonator, bizarre melting images,flashes of demonic figures and eventually Satan himself that looks like a small pig or a plastic Teletubby hopping around. That really didn't make any sense to me. I myself am not religious, but I fear that the real devout people may be offended. The content of blasphemy is kind of explicit. Its use is justified as it's about devil worshipers who reject everything that is divine .
In the end it was just a variation on the theme of "Rosemary's Baby" but terribly elaborated. The end was in a kind of theater where a select audience could watch the final scene (probably people evoked by the music). The three modern witches who had settled in the house where Heidi lived, to make sure that the ancient ritual wasn't interrupted by some stranger, performed in such a way that many abstract and modern theater companies would be jealous.
For me it wasn't such a great horror movie (if we can call it that way). It had a promising start and finished in a really crazy way. I'm pretty sure this last part was created under the influence of some kind of chemical substance. I'm not going to avoid other movies from Rob Zombie, because even though this was a freaky experience, I am pretty sure that this man is capable to produce an outstanding and obscure horror movie.
"This was once all Cherokee land. It was considered sacred ground, and trespassers would be killed on sight."
At the very least, you can say that "Beacon point" is a weird and rather strange movie. After seeing it you're wondering what in God's name it was about anyway. I started watching it without any clue what it would be about. And by the time the end credits rolled over the screen, I still didn't have a clue. In the first 15 minutes there are also some events which in hindsight had nothing to do with the whole story. It starts with a Predator-like scene where two hunters, who look like they have just returned from a Vietnam tour, are chased by something unknown in the forest. Then we see Drake (John Briddell) having an argument with his boss about his criminal past. The result is not too beneficial for Drake. Let's say a fallen antler with sharp ends plays a main role.
Then there are some facts that aren't plausible and realistic enough too me. First of all the volunteers who want to follow the Appalachian Trail aren't asking any questions about the person Drake. I suppose they've paid a lot of money for this trip. And yet, nobody is wondering if Drake is the official guide and if he's experienced enough. The participants meekly submit their participation papers and follow the completely unknown and not officially introduced trail master.
Even when they find a corpse after a bit of walking, Drake tells them it's just an unfortunate incident and that it's probably the result of a hungry bear the victim ran into while hiking through the forest. So, no problem. And they continue their trip in the assumption that someone else will solve the problem I guess. I know for certain I would turn around, because I wouldn't want to encounter that same hungry bear somewhere.
It's also bizarre that in the rest of the film these events aren't mentioned again. As if it never happened. It seems like they've used these events to get a standard playtime for the movie. It seems like random events which have nothing to do with the story line. After these unusual occurrences, we get a lot of walking and puffing. The same as in "A walk in the woods" and "Wild".
The participants are a colorful group consisting of Brian (Jason Burkey) and Cheese (RJ Shearer), two brothers who recently discovered they were brothers. Then there is Dan (Eric Goins), a jolly fat guy who left Silicon Valley behind for a while. And Zoe is an ex-real estate broker who concluded that she didn't want to end up like her father and, as a tribute, wants to scatter her dad's ashes in the Appalachians. Before they realize it, they are lost and discover an ancient Indian cemetery and later on a bizarre totem. And that's when strange things start to happen at night and the group of hikers are the victims of nightmares and illnesses
Not only the course of the story and the cause of all this misery were strange. The most strange thing is that despite the unoriginal, bad dialogues, the ridiculous decisions and the total lack of explanation, I was fascinated by it in a certain way. There's a somewhat tense atmosphere. There are beautiful shots to admire made by a drone I guess. And the acting wasn't so bad after all (just ignore the dialogues). It's only the lack of knowing what happened actually that became an annoyance. Was it the trespassing of an old Indian cemetery that released an ancient curse? Or was it aliens that caused it all? Or did they eat some wrong mushrooms and became delirious? And why didn't they all get sick ? Believe me. You won't get an answer in the end. And the last images causes even more confusion and are a source of new speculations.
If you expected a type of "X-files" after seeing the cover, you'll be deeply disappointed. And you can hardly call it horror. There's not one creepy or scary scene in it. The only effect this film had on me was that I'm sure I'll once visit those Appalachian forests. And I'm certain there won't be any martians to haunt me at night.
"My mom is Jbuddist, which is Jewish slash Buddhist"
Occasionally I have to give in and look at a "romcom" over the weekend. My wife is happy because she can see another chick flick. And I'm happy because my braincells get a rest once again while watching a movie. You really don't need them while watchting "The Big Wedding". The only reason why I wanted to watch this movie was the fact that there were quite a few big stars participating in it. Robert De Niro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Robin Williams and Topher Grace. But a sublime cast can't always save a movie. That's cristal clear.
I have to admit, it's not a movie that completely sucks and it meets all the necessary requirements as the movie is about organizing and completing a wedding. It's one out of a dozen and can be added to the list of previous wedding movies such as "Father of the Bride", "My Big Greek Wedding", "Honeymoon in Vegas" and "Wedding Crashers". The latter is on a different level, but the typical cliche jokes are also in it. It looks as if Diana Keaton has a weak spot for such kind of movies. Again she shows up as a mother of one of the wedding couple. This time she's the mum of the groom.
Something inevitably always must be present in these movies ... A nearby pond. This is absolutely needed so that there's invariably a splashing water scene in the movie. Fetishists are waiting for this to appear so the tears of laughter roll down their cheeks. In "The Big Wedding" it was used twice. First time when the beautiful naked body of Ana Ayora disappears in it (The drooling part) and the second time as Robin Williams tumbles in it (The less drooling part). The latter has however retained greatly in terms of exaggerated acting and seems to have had a dose of sedatives so that he doesn't start trotting around in a hyper-kinetic way. Anyway, I thought for a moment that I had already seen this movie, but I confused this movie with "License to wed" in which he also played the role of a priest. Personally I thought the confession scene was extremely funny and hilarious. I even had to laugh briefly.
I thought the rest of the cast played on autopilot. Robert De Niro showed up again in his bathrobe and seemed to come straight out of "Meet the Fockers". Keaton looked like an old tart who realizes that her days of extreme sexual appetite are over, but still gets pleasantly surprised during the course of the story and discovers that those cobwebs suddenly disappeared. The dialogues between both were sometimes funny and entertaining. Susan Sarandon plays as always an old spinster. Katherine Heigl was there for the dramatic part. The most imaginative and funny role was played by Topher Grace as the not so bad looking doctor who's already 29 and never shagged anybody. The whole movie he's chasing the South-American Nuria like a turned on, horny little guy.
The inevitable misunderstandings follow each other in rapid succession. The divorced Don and Ellie need to fake that they are still married, with some uncomfortable situations as a result. The new girlfriend is pushed aside a bit what pisses her off and she takes revenge by unexpectedly appearing everywhere. The daughter is trying to get pregnant for years already and now has an allergic reaction to anything that has to do with babies. Eventually she turns out to be pregnant just as she broke up with the future father. Sigh ... The South-American girl first wants to start something exciting with the 29 year old son who is, as mentioned earlier, still a virgin. But after a friendly chat with the mother she doesn't want that anymore. As a result the son walks around like a frustrated teenager with his pants too tight. The handjob by the South American during dinner reminded me immediately of "Wedding Crashers". As icing on the cake it turns out that there are more persons who had an affair. Some even like to do it with someone of the same sex . Don't worry, no one will be offended , and life goes on as usual. Felt strange to me anyway.
Well, it was a fun movie just for passing time on a Sunday, and the benefit of such movies is that the playtime isn't that long. Afterwards you feel relaxed and you're happy you didn't end up in such a crazy family.
Normally I start a review with a quote from the film in question. That's a bit difficult in this case since "All is lost" lacks any conversation. The only thing that would qualify is a frustrated cry of the famous F-word. For the rest it is just sloshing water, creaking wood, nois of hitting ropes and lots of rain and falling water, you hear throughout the film. I can understand his frustration, because how the hell is it possible to have a collision between your pleasure boat and a container on that immeasurable ocean while doing an afternoon nap ? It's difficult to call this movie unnerving exciting. I dare to say that it was dead boring after a certain time. The only decision I took after watching this film is that I'll never set foot on such a boat and float around on the ocean with nothing but water around you as far as you can look. And in the worst case, not only around you, but also down at you.
Robert Redford, the icon of the white screen, had to carry the complete movie. He was, after all, the only living figure in this wet movie. Besides an unidentified hand at the last moment. No idea what RR 's name was. Besides, there is a total lack of background information about his character. Except that we know where exactly he is sailing. I can't complain about his acting performance because this was sometimes astounding. The only thing that really amazed me was how stoically calm he was the whole time. A damn container makes a leak, no electricity or radio, a storm that shows up, the whole boat turns upside down, he hits his head against an iron pole, the boat is sinking, the lifeboat ends up in a storm, also turns upside down and then it catches fire ... but does he keep a straight face ? Yes sir ! He's a paragon of utmost restraint. I found this a bit exaggerated because I certainly would need a spare box of diapers in those circumstances ! The explanation might be that he's an experienced sailor. Yet this experienced sailor had to read a handbook on how to determine his position using the stars. And apparently he never used a sextant before. There were times when it was so predictable. I said at one time it wouldn't surprise me if "Jaws" would suddenly show up. Afterwards they wandered around his dinghy. And that his boat could sink at any moment, could not stop him to crawl aboard a second time. And off course the second time it went down.
The movie itself wasn't that bad, but it wasn't very entertaining either. And sailing seems to be a dull affair after all. The end was cheesy and followed the well known Hollywood guidelines. For me, the end would have gained enormously in strength, if at that ultimate moment RR wants to grasp the saving hand, he'dd be dragged down by a great white shark. But that is too exaggerated and would be enormously ironic.
There's only one kid on this launch with any brains at all so far, and that's Ender Wiggin.
Brace yourself for again a graphically stunning looking SF, with a strong beginning, a story that will make you frown your eyebrows and a fairly disappointing end. It's again based on a book I haven't read. The good news is, it's not a very complicated story. It's not such a story you don't know what it's about, because you didn't read the book in which the details are usually described. You'll notice as the movie progresses that it's a youth book. I couldn't get rid of the impression that this was a kind of "Harry Potter in Space". A kind of magic boy possesses certain qualities that adults have long been looking for. He's repeatedly called "The One" (an echoing reverberating sound effect wouldn't be out of place here) and is apparently a wet dream of the leader of the cadet school (Harrison Ford). Of course, this little boy is looked at as an emerging hero and hailed for his intelligence that others apparently do not possess cause of a momentary brain disorder. Strange, because after all they also belong to the select group of highly intellectual kids. Well anyway, it leads to resentment, jealousy and hate. But our friend Ender eventually turns the tide and gathers together a fan base to protect the earth's population against the oncoming swarm of Formics.
As I said already, this SF is an eye catcher. I bet the "Special Effects" department has spent a lot of money on this one. It looks nice, crispy and flashy. As a SF fan you'll start to drool for sure. The comparison with recent works such as "Oblivion", "Elysium" and "Prometheus" is obvious. Even "Gravity" is included when it's about the images from space with a beautiful planet at the background. I even got flashbacks from earlier films like "Battlestar Galactica," "Independence Day" and "The Black Hole". Generally you can say that it looked fine and worked out into perfection. The space battles in both the simulator and the real one, looked pretty impressive. The alien spacecrafts that moved like a flock of starlings was magnificent to see. And indeed, the heroic deed by Mazer Rackham looked like a duplicate of scenes out of "Independence Day".
The performances were usually excellent. No Oscar material, but nothing that really annoyed me. Asa Butterfield was a convincing Ender. Harrison Ford was a confident Colonel who has no problem with the fact that they actually are training kid soldiers. Viola Davis, the psychologist on board, was a convincing motherly military. And the rest of the little ones did what they had to do: or they were from the beginning an adoring friend of Ender (Petra and Co) or buggers who immediately began to tease him. Moisos Arias was the best example. In Ender's place, I would have kicked this South American annoying brat into space.
The thing that started to annoy me was the content of the story. Indeed it is kept simple and rather childish. Initially I don't have a problem with that. The run-up to the training was fascinating to watch and kept my attention. I just started to question myself about the usefulness of the whole training since later on, they didn't make much use of it anyway. It looked like a sort of "Quidditch" but then in space suits. And you could also win the game by getting someone of your own team through the opponents gate, instead of throwing a ball ! It was a pleasure to see the various team members floating around in those glass balls. But that was it. Only some floating around! The idea of those little guys learning a kind of Lasergun teen game and afterwards using real war material to teach those aliens a lesson, kind of felt unreal and surealistic. The lack of explanation about the relationship between Ender and his brother Peter and sister Valentine was kind of a disappointment. I wanted to know more about that. It would have been interesting material. And as a grand finale Ender suddenly transformed into a Good Samaritan and was outraged about the fact they have lied to him. I thought they were preparing him for this task anyway and that he fully understood that. But no, the little fellow got extremely mad and suddenly he unravels the complete mystery and goes on his last mission as Admiral to accomplish a promise he made. Deep disappointment ! I can only conclude that it's a visually delightful film. The story is of a childish level, but is actually still a bridge too far for the youngest. But I found the end a huge letdown that screwed up the rest of the movie.
Comments 276 - 300 of 630
Movie comment on Jamesy Boy
ikkegoemikke
"Now you keep writing. It don't matter about what, it don't even matter if it's good or not."Yet another moralizing "boy-on-bad-path-comes-to-reflection" story. There are probably several such individuals of whom a story could be told. Despite the fact that this is a story based on true events, it is a film stuffed with cliché elements. It will be an inspiration for some, but that was the movie "Life of a King" with Cuba Gooding Jr.. too. Only the latter was more convincing and credible. James Burns looks more like a member of "The Backstreet Boys" or a modern parody of James Dean, with his clean-shaven appearance and perfect hairstyle. Hopefully the air conditioners worked on maximum in the cinema, so that they didn't need to evacuate massively fainted teenage girls.
James Burns ( Spencer Lofranco ) is a troubled boy who has spent most of his youth in institutions and already running around with an ankle strap at the age of 14. He has an impressive long criminal record, including threatening his mother's boyfriend with a knife. His single mother Tracy (Mary - Louise Parker) does everything to get him back on a by society accepted track. Only James feels misunderstood, and he lacks the will to tackle his life in a different way. As a result, he derails soon and begins again with loitering, truancy, smoking joints and eventually participate in robbing a local store. There he meets Crystal (Rosa Salazar), the local mattress of the neighborhood, who introduced him to Roc (Michael Trotter), a local gang leader and drug trafficker. Because of his sturdy and apparently fearless attitude, James gets more respect from Roc who is promoting him to his right hand after a certain period of time. Yet James tries to get his life back in order and he meets Sarah (Taissa Farmiga), the daughter of the owner of the local store they have previously robbed. Eventually it goes wrong anyway and James ends up in jail. His tough and self-destructive attitude crumbles there slowly. Partly caused by Conrad (Ving Rhames) who's been sentenced to life and tries to convince James not to end up in the same way.
Besides the cliché content, also the implausible performance of Lofranco is a setback. He doesn't look like a self-destructive and menacing mobster. Several times I found it a bit ridiculous as this good-looking teen idol waves around with a heavy gun at a fierce looking gangster. Immediately I associated it with the arrest pictures of "Justin Bieber". Also such an angelic face. In general, the acting performance of Lofranco wasn't that bad. Just his looks didn't fit. Obviously we have a mother who'll never give up and still has a little hope that her son will still come to his senses, but eventually realises it's hopeless. Also a girlfriend appears and naturally she introduces him to the wrong friends and drags him into his downfall. Prison life is of course a battleground with different rival gangs and a rather impressive tough gang leader (Taboo from The Black Eyed Peas) of whom, how is it possible, James isn't impressed. That makes that they end up in a fight regularly. The pathetic newcomer also has to be present. Again it's someone who looks like he wouldn't even hurt a fly and the tough guys start harassing him. James of course comes to the rescue for this weakling. And then there's the savior in the form of Ving Rhames. A figure that looks like a steamroller who would crush you effortless to serve as fillings between his sandwich, but repentance came while in prison and he dreams of Rio de Janeiro and the huge statue with spread arms on top of a mountain ... sigh . Eventually, he manages to convince James to change gear. So James subsequently emerge as a future poet and he starts to write down deeply human rhymes. We get the well-known images of someone writing down something diligently, then thoughtfully looking into infinity for a few seconds and then writing enthusiastically again.
"Jamesy Boy" is a typical story. You start wondering if it really was necessary to make a movie about it. There are so many other like James in the world. The only beautiful moments were the quiet and fragile ones with James and Sarah. Tomorrow I'll forget all this and in the future as it is broad-casted once again on some television channel, I will think deeply whether I've seen it or not.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Not Safe for Work
ikkegoemikke
A humble opinion about this modest movie. Without realizing it, I was watching a 70-minute film. It ended before I knew it. I found it remarkable that the introduction was so short and it didn’t take long before Tom Miller (Max Minghella) got stuck on a floor in a pharmaceutical company with a killer. A thriller (with really almost no thrills) without bells and whistles.
Yet some respect for Joe Hohnston who directed films like “Jumanji“, “The Rocketeer“, “Jurassic Park III” and “Captain America: The First Avenger” in the past. And here he’s involved in the making of a simple low-budget straight-to-DVD movie. And also with a production company which released films like “Paranormal Activity“, “Oculus“, “Insidious” and “The Purge“. A sticker on the DVD cover with these data on it and you have a guaranteed amount of film fans who expect a gem. I am convinced that a large part of them will be disillusioned.
Not safe for work
So Tom Miller is a novice clerk who works in the legal department of a large pharmaceutical company. He’s trying to prove himself and writes on his own initiative a note about a mafia family. However, this is not appreciated by everybody and he is fired at the end of the day. (We are only 5 minutes far in the movie). When he arrives in the lobby with his personal belongings in a cardboard box, he witnesses a briefcase exchange between someone who leaves the building and a second person who looks like a businessman. Of course, he decides to follow the man and he eventually ends up on the same floor where he had just left and he realizes after a time he’s stuck on this electronically sealed floor.
Not safe for work
What we get is a kind of “Die Hard” hostage in an office but without a lot of action, gunfights and comical and entertaining dialogues. It’s a cat and mouse game where all the characters are mostly running and creeping around back and forth. Only JJ Feild, as the cold-blooded killer, made an impression in terms of acting. Until the last moment, he remains admirably calm and he gives the impression to have situation completely under control. The rest of the company just put on a mediocre acting show.
Not safe for work
Is it such a bad movie ? No not really. I found it fascinating to watch. As long as you don’t expect some pronounced action, thoughtful dialogues and sophisticated put together storyline, it’ll increase your appreciation level. I don’t know if it is intentional, but there really are no explicit or gory murder scenes. The short playing time is another plus. That way you won’t get the opportunity to get annoyed about certain things.
Conclusion: A straightforward low-budget thriller with very few surprises or twists, but still enjoyable in a certain way.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Non-Stop
ikkegoemikke
"I'm not hijacking this plane. I'm trying to save it!"Not very original, but unnerving exciting at times. "Captain Philips", "Speed", "Last passenger" and "Under Siege". There isn't a vehicle that drives, sails or flies, and it has already been hijacked in a movie. It seems as if Liam Neeson really likes playing in action movies. And just like in "The Grey" he's a person who struggles with his past.
Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is an Air Marshal who actually has an aversion to flying. Because of the loss of his little daughter, he's a bit in the doldrums. The beginning of the movie shows a decrepit, not so fresh looking Marks, pouring a bit of whiskey in his coffee. A security guard with an alcohol problem who's about to get on board of a trans-Atlantic flight. That's asking for trouble. Shortly after the takeoff, he receives text messages via the secure network with the requirement to transfer $ 150 million to a bank account. If he doesn't meet the requirement, someone will be killed every 20 minutes. And so the search for the perpetrator among the 150 passengers begins.
All in all it was a highly entertaining film with a constant tension. It's a long time ago that I've watched a movie sitting on the edge of my seat and wondering who would be the one who's doing this. All the time someone else is a suspect what eventually makes it more fun to watch. There have been made several thrillers that take place on a plane. It's the ideal location to make an exciting film. But there are quite a few strange twists in this film. I got the impression that Marks was on his way to London, to be dishonorably discharged. Looking at the conversations it seems like his superiors didn't have much confidence in him as a security guard. If he's so psychotic and unstable, why didn't they ask the second security guard who's on board to take over ? The news was also a bit exaggerated again. If such a tricky situation would arise on board of an aircraft, the news would surely be more discrete. And i would love to see somebody doing in reality something like Marks did, when he flies around in a free-fall and grabs his gun which is hovering around him.
Ultimately, these are only minor futile remarks that won't change the fact that it's a clever story. The claustrophobic feeling and the feeling that you are so vulnerable up in the air, is constantly present. The scene in which text messages are floating around Marks, are wonderful to see. Neeson shows again in a convincing way a resolute and alert agent, despite his personal misfortune and the allegations against him. The general feeling prevails that he completely lost control. He has such a stature that exudes confidence, despite its small imperfections. Julianne Moore is the cold-blooded Jen whom he met on the plane accidentally. A woman who, as we learn later , wants to have a window seat for medical reasons and thus ends up beside Marks. Jen eventually becomes his refuge and the only one Marks trusts. The supporting roles are reserved for some familiar faces like Scoot McNairy (Monsters , Killing them Softly , Argo , 12 Years a Slave) , Michelle Dockery (Hanna) , Nate Parker (Red Tails) and Lupita Nyong'o (Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 12 Years a Slave).
I haven't been bored during this film. It's just a hostage drama, but the pace of this movie makes sure you don't have the time to consider this. The only low point was the uncovering and the revealing of the motivation to start all this. The whole plan is so ingeniously put together, and then they come up with such an uninspired plot again. The compulsory dramatic part where Neeson informs the passengers about his misery and you see the embarrassed and sympathetic glances, was extremely clichéd. It seemed as if the lack of time made them come up with a quickly invented ending. Despite that it's still a nice thriller, but it won't leave a lasting impression.
More reviews here
Movie comment on 13 Sins
ikkegoemikke
"Congratulations.You have been selected for the opportunity to take part in a one-of-a-kind game show!"
What would you do? You're sitting in your car, looking blankly around while waiting at a traffic light. You slowly begin to realize that your world is falling apart with you standing in the epicenter. Your dream to climb to a better position in the company where you work, was nipped in the bud by a sudden resignation because you are not enough ruthless and unfeeling. Your wife is pregnant and you're about to get married. You also have to take care of your mentally handicapped brother, which costs a lot of money. You have outstanding debts from your studies. And as icing on the cake, your aging "racist" father wants to move in with you. You come to the realization that your life is going to be a hell, since your future wife is an Afro-American.
And then suddenly you get a phone call from someone, telling you that you have been selected to participate in a simple game where you have to finish 13 tasks so you'll receive a lousy 6.2 million dollars. The first task for $ 1,000 is to swat a fly that's flying around in your car. I wouldn't think about it for one second and smash that damn fly till it's as flat as a pancake. And so did Elliot (Mark Webber). As a result he sees his bank account filled with the promised sum of money.
"13 Sins" is a horrifying thriller. You can see it coming that the following tasks aren't that obvious, but rather insane and they put Elliot all the time in a dilemma. Because if he doesn't perform the job, or explains the whole thing to someone or deliberately tries to sabotage the game, he's automatically disqualified and he loses the laboriously saved up money.
This movie is based on the popular Thai film made in 2006 by Chookiat Sakweerakul. Granted I haven't seen the original film, and probably there will be a multitude of supporters shouting loudly that this is an abomination of the original superb film. I have no idea if that's true, but I thought this was a decent film full of suspense and entertainment. Elliot is being confronted with the phenomenon of human weakness. He realizes that what he's doing isn't socially acceptable and yet he overcomes his distaste and disgust about his actions, because the goal in the end is so promising . Mark Webber (" Goodbye World") succeeds in showing those mixed feelings perfectly. You see his alter ego evolve from excited and enthusiastic, to disgusted and pronounced outraged. For me this was a great interpretation. He also has a certain charisma that makes you feel directly involved with his sad situation and he immediately arouses sympathy. Devon Graye also convinces as Michael, the mentally handicapped brother. At times it's terrifyingly real. A chatterbox who must take his pill on time and has fixed rituals like driving at a certain speed on a main road. To the annoyance of other road users.
Rutina Wesley is for the most part just an insignificant side character. Until the end. Then there's a defining moment in which the whole process could well restart. Looking at it afterwards, this is actually the key moment in the whole film. Ron Perlman, the chameleon in the film world, better known as "Hellboy", fits perfectly into the role of the dubious detective Chilcoat. His over-sized chin alone, makes an overwhelming impression.
The moment Chilcoat starts showing interest in the matter, leads to a rapidly succession of twists and finally ending up in a totally insane finish. The rapid pace at which the film is set, and the succession of lurid scenes, makes sure you can't think about the sense and nonsense of the whole thing. "13 Sins" isn't really a horror but rather a tight "to the point" thriller involving topics such as materialism and judgments, in an elevated manner, about the fate of others. A successful concept with occasional gore sections which were well appreciated.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Zulu
ikkegoemikke
"Death on the Nile" but in the present time and a little further to the south on the African continent namely Cape Town, the jewel of South Africa. A typical detective story in which two very different detectives are searching for the murderer of the daughter of a famous rugby player. Despite the many cliché's and typical characteristics of the two detectives, it has become a surprising film. Brooding, menacing, hard and intense. A dark and grim study in which the spirit of the old apartheid regime is still present."Zulu" closed the 66th edition of the Cannes Film Festival. It is an adaptation of the novel by Caryl Férey and made by the French director Jerome Salle. The opening scene immediately gives an indication of what you can expect. It's a black and white fragment. A flashback to 1978 at the time of the apartheid in which a small young kid witnesses how his father is burned alive. This little boy is Ali Sokhela (Forest Whitaker), one of the two detectives and head of "Cape Town's Serious Violent Crime Unit" who is in charge of the murder investigation. Later in the movie you get to see the sequel of this flashback. A grim and gruesome sequel which clarifies why Ali deals with his amorous bonding with a particular woman in a very special way.
The second detective Brian Epkeen is played by Orlando Bloom. A surprising rendition by Orlando who normally got well mannered and clean-shaves roles in previous movies. However Epkeen has a rugged image. He looks rather crumpled with a not so fresh and unshaven appearance. A womanizer who's always late for work and an emotional wreck with a failed marriage and a son he doesn't seem to care for. His son hates him like the plague. As a result he has a alcohol problem and he takes every opportunity to seduce a woman who crosses his path. A petulant and pedantic nuisance who does everything in his own way. And yet Ali believes in him and thinks he's a decent detective.
Ultimately "Zulu" is no more than a brutal police film with drugs, gangsters, corruption and again a pharmaceutical company involved. It's something less casual then "Starsky and Hutch", but the unfolding of the story follows a well known pattern. Whether or not there have been experiments to decimate the black population , I don't know, but it sounded pretty far-fetched in my ears. If it's authentic, then the regime was sicker than we can imagine.
The two protagonists were realistic portrayed. Forest Whitaker used again his "Droopy" expression and looked frighteningly thin. The traumatic past that he carries is constantly present and shown. However, Orlando Bloom made the biggest impression on me. A grim role he hasn't played before, but he still manages to shine quite successfully. I found the South African dialogs interesting. This emphasized the authenticity of this film.
South Africa is dark and gloomy in this film, full of poverty and hopelessness, full of hatred and resentment, so many things which can never be forgiven. Despite the sometimes beautiful images of the coast and the wealthier neighborhoods, the overall picture remains a depressing one. The explicit action ensures that it exceeds the average detective movie. And at times it's intensely exciting. The furious pace of the movie makes it a thrilling experience from start to finish.
More reviews here
Movie comment on I'll Follow You Down
ikkegoemikke
Gabe Whyte (Rufus Sewell) is about to leave for a convention in Princeton by plane. He still plays a game of chess with his son Erol (Haley Joel Osment) and says goodbye to his wife Marika (Gillian Anderson) in a loving (surprising) way at the airport. But Gabe doesn't return and leaves his family lonely and broken behind. A not ended game of chess is a lasting memory of him.About 12 years later after the mysterious disappearance of Gabe, we see Erol back as a mature 21 year old brainiac who excels in science and math. A gifted student who has probably inherited the genes from his family that consists entirely of academics and scientists. A traumatic event brings his grandfather Sal (Victor Garber) as far as to talk about the disappearance of his father and tells Erol his theory. Over the years Erol is more and more convinced that his father died. According to Sal, his son discovered an ability to travel back in time through so-called "wormholes" and wanted to meet Einstein in a parallel universe.
So "I'll follow you down" is about time traveling. It's certainly not easy to come up with an original movie about that since there are already unmentionable films about this phenomenon (Back to the Future, Looper, 12 Monkeys, Terminator, About Time, Déja Vu, ....) which are imbued with action to keep the attention of the audience in a grip. "I'll follow you down" focuses on the scientific and emotional part of time traveling. Despite the lack of action or excitement it remains an intriguing SF questioning again the well known complications. What impact does a change in the past have on your present life? Will your personal situation still be identical in both family and professional way? It's certainly not a flashy youthful SF adventure movie like "Back to the Future"! It's still pretty clever of the director Richie Mehta to cast famous faces for this low-budget indie SF . An "X-Files"-like story deserves someone like Gillian Anderson, who indeed didn't loose any of her good looks over the years. Haley Joel Osment who everyone knows as the endearing little boy who could see dead people in "The Sixth Sense" and who went looking for his real personality in "AI". Besides the fact that he has gained some weight and has a goatee, you can still discern that angelic look in that bigger face. He can still look so sad with those puppy eyes. Especially Anderson delivers a brilliant performance as the depressed wife who lost her eternal love and never got over this loss so she got psychiatric assistance over the years and kept going with medication. Osment went on with his life and build a life together with his childhood friend. The disinterested gaze while his mother talked about his father and their first encounter, says enough.
Unfortunately a big part of the film focuses on the relationships and what the possible consequences would be if Erol plans to travel to the past. Would it have an influence on his personal life ? The making of the time machine is limited to showing a welding mask, complicated mathematical formulas of quantum physics on a board and a small portion of a kind of diving bell. The display of the ultimate time travel itself is fairly limited and was at the time in the episodes of "Dr. Who "much better portrayed. It also bothered me that after the 12-year period Erol changed a lot, while his mother and grandfather still had the same appearance. Quite unbelievable.
It's not an action packed movie but has nicely detailed character studies and a terrible dilemma Erol has to make a decision about. Ultimately, it's nothing more than a family drama in which the husband abandons his family, who are left behind with unanswered questions. In "I'll follow you down" he wasn't off to get cigarettes, after which he didn't return. He just got stuck somewhere in the past. This Canadian film should certainly not be considered as a failure, but still it missed something and there was still a dissatisfaction that bothered me. It was as if I've looked an episode about traveling by train and there wasn't even a fragment where you could see the train they were traveling with....
More reviews here
Movie comment on The Book of Henry
ikkegoemikke
"Violence isn't the worst thing in the world.What is then?
Apathy."
I'm sure that some movie critics of reputable newspapers ("The Guardian" and the like) and magazines are awful, out-of-touch guys, who pine away on a dusty attic avoiding any contact with other human individuals. Pessimists who cringe at the sign of a bit of emotions and sugar-sweet feelgood moods and hide like a slug that encounters a grain of salt on her path. The result is an allergic reaction of disgust and aversion, after which they begin to spit their guts and criticize the targeted object. Is "The Book of Henry" really overly-sentimental? Is it so sugary that your blood glucose levels suddenly go berserk? Is it so un-freakin-believable that a Jerry Springer show looks like a realistic show? And does the second part of the movie about revenging a child molester feel extremely exaggerated? Maybe yes. However, calling this film the biggest crap of the year, demonstrates shortsightedness and empathy similar to that of a mummified Egyptian pharaoh.
Whatever they claim, "The Book of Henry" is an amiable and entertaining evening filler. Something I'm yearning for after an endless series of nerve-racking or extremely serious movies where you need to stay focused, so you won't lose the thread after another plot-twist. I admit I watched the first chapter with more pleasure than the second chapter. Not because of the acting. But content-wise it was sometimes a bit too much and after a while it lost a bit of its credibility. For instance. I doubt you can buy a high-tech sniper rifle in the U.S. just by saying some obscure name and waving with a bundle of dollar bills. Let's skip the formalities! And someone calling the authorities after seeing an emotional performance of a ballet dancer, was quite bizarre. Especially when bruises and the timid behavior of the girl herself (plus Henry's testimonies) didn't ring any bells before.
You can say the film is kind of bizarre. Not only because of the family situation in which the Carpenter family finds itself. That's already extremely strange. Also the sudden twist in the middle of the story is bit of uncommon. Not often a main character leaves the story so early. Even though he isn't completely out of the picture. And that's why I'm talking about two chapters. The "pre" and "post" Henry period. Perhaps the mix of genres is a cause for criticism. At first, it looks like an innocent youth movie. Then it goes from a melodrama to a thriller with a revenge motive. Granted, that might be too much as well.
I enjoyed the acting the most. Jaeden Lieberher as bright Henry. A young boy looking at the world with very different eyes due to his unimaginable intelligence and at the same time he's still like an average, everyday boy. The way in which he confronts his classmates with the real facts is both sobering as extremely funny. Lieberher plays this with seemingly little effort. A brilliant mind but played in such a way that he remains human. Only I thought that his cartoonish machine he designed, using wires, hammers and wooden mechanisms, was quite contradictory to his high intellectual abilities. Naomi Watts (gorgeous role in "Demolition" by the way) is a known quantity, although she's acted of the screen a bit by her dominant son and all she seems to be doing is hitting the buttons on her PS4 controller. Even in the second chapter, Henry is holding her hand and is in charge of everything. But especially Jacob Tremblay, as the younger brother Peter, really surprised me. Not because of his impact on the story. But the professionalism he displays in shaping his personality. A likable and highly amusing character. Maddie Ziegler knew how to play the emotionally broken neighbor girl in a sublime way. A rendition in which the repressed emotions impressed more than Henry's occasional hyper-kinetic behavior.
Perhaps it's my age that makes me more melancholic and I'm touched much faster. However, I think most viewers approach this movie in a wrong way. I read somewhere that Henry's preconceived plan (which he has worked out in detail in his red booklet) is the opposite of his intellectual ability. A burst in his wisdom because it's revenge he's after. However, perhaps this was the only solution he could come up with after deductive and analytical reasoning. How does anyone react when witnessing that a criminal offense goes unpunished? And legal measures don't have the desired effect? Perhaps it takes more time for average intelligent people to come to the same conclusion.
I'm afraid I'm the only one with a positive opinion about this movie. Apparently, I like to root for the underdogs among movies. I'm sure that critics and opponents of "The book of Henry" will say that Trevorrow, after this cinematic adventure, delivered better work in the more realistic blockbuster "Episode IX". Even if he would add a scene with Chewbacca, Han Solo and Luke Skywalker dancing the can-can, these experts of stories on celluloid will probably approve it and claim that the man has added a willful interpretation to the Star Wars story. But he mustn't give in to willfulness when it comes to other movies (grinding teeth intonation). I am pleased that rebellious movies like "The Book of Henry" are made in Hollywood and not only the sometimes saltless crap that's being released. Because those are the movies where I say "Well, this was a great movie" when it's finished.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Once Upon a Time in Venice
ikkegoemikke
"Never fuck with a man's dog."Either Venice Beach in L.A. is a tiny place at the ocean. Or Bruce Willis knows how to move around with incredibly speed. Because the pace at which he pops up in different places is impressive. Fortunately, it's not full naked on a skateboard the whole time, because that wasn't a pretty sight. Just like Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Aftermath", you can see that aging is getting to Bruce Willis. The result is a set of not so tight buttocks. But they are still muscular enough to clamp a revolver in between.
"Once upon a time in Venice" is a fairly chaotic story where Steve Ford (Bruce Willis), a private detective who solves ludicrous cases most of the time, gets into a lot of trouble when his dog is being stolen by a local gang. Well, John Wick also shot a bunch of gangsters, after they've killed his cute little dog. Proof that you should be careful with dog owners. Before Steve realizes it, he needs to fulfill a few assignments to get his dog back. And trust me, a few of those clients look and act absolutely weird.
Despite the satirical mood and some highly amusing characters, the whole story isn't so impressive. Perhaps it was their intention to make an action comedy, but unfortunately the humorous section was quite disappointing and the action part was limited to a number of skirmishes in the end. To be honest, for once, it's the enthusiasm of Bruce Willis's acting that surprised me. In this movie he doesn't have that uninterested, tired look and nonchalant attitude as he demonstrated before in a few meaningless films. No, once again you could see him appear with his sympathetic, cheerful look while quoting a few one-liners (though they weren't really witty). This time it felt as if the paycheck wasn't the main reason for him to participate in this film. The movie poster reminded me immediately of "The Last Boy Scout". Come to think of it. Wasn't he planning to buy a dog for his wife in that movie as well? In all probability a coincidence, I guess.
Personally I thought John Goodman (Did he loose weight?) stole the show as Steve's sidekick. His character looks as if he came straight out of "The Big Lebowski". A peculiar person and owner of a surf shop whose life is riding a fatalistic roller-coaster because of a messy divorce. But the moment he takes part in the action, as Steve's partner, he's as happy as a pig in shoes. The surprised look on his face when he sees Steve's weapon arsenal, is comparable to his overall performance. It's as if John Goodman didn't really know why he was in this movie in the first place. Which made it even more funny. Also Jason Momoa (last seen in "Bad Batch" playing an interesting role) did a great job. On the one hand, a lame persiflage-like part. But because it was greatly exaggerated, it became funny as well. And in between, you'll see a Jewish real estate owner called "Lew the Jew" (Adam Goldberg), who's troubled by a fanatic graffiti artist who paints explicit pornographic artwork on his buildings.
I often felt embarrassed about certain scenes while watching this movie. On the one hand, it was fun to see Bruce Willis acting with visible pleasure and without scruples. On the other hand, there were also some awkward performances to admire and the humorous level wasn't comparable to what Willis had done in the past. Perhaps it was a movie unworthy of such an actor as Bruce Willis, but compared to the other monstrosities he appeared in in the recent past, this comedy/action movie was still a little bit of an improvement.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Before I Fall
ikkegoemikke
"Maybe for you there's a tomorrow.Maybe for you there's 1,000 or 3,000 or 10.
So much time you can bathe in it.
So much time you can waste it.
But for some of us,there's only today.
And what you do today matters."
Damn time loops. Bill Murray got stuck in one in "Groundhog Day" and could escape it by surrendering to love. And Tom Cruise had a less pleasant loop in "Edge of tomorrow". He died every time during an alien invasion. Samantha (Zoey Deutch) faces the same problem. A night out with her friends Lindsay (Halston Sage), Ally (Cynthy Wu) and Elodie (Medalion Rahimi) ends in a disastrous way, after which she wakes up on "Cupid's Day" over and over again. "Cupid's Day" is that time of year when youngsters in school give each other roses to show their love.
If these bosom friends would bury themselves with red roses, nobody would really be surprised. Because these narcissistic glamour tarts are living in an egocentric, artificial cocoon, where there's only room for their stuck-up personalities. A life of perfection and complacency in which the other less-favored (both financially and in appearance) are criticized and mocked. These arrogant girls don't even realize that they aren't so popular just because of their looks, but largely thanks to their rich parents. This allows them to distinguish themselves from others materialistically. Driving a car of a somewhat more expensive class. Parading with Louis Vuitton handbags and exclusive clothes.
"Before I fall" fails in two areas. First of all, it's not very original. As I said before, it's a kind of variation on "Groundhog day". Except that the latter also had some comic situations. This film tackles the issue more seriously and has a much more important message on a moral level. And secondly, it's highly predictable. Once you know what's really going on and the facts are slowly revealed, you already know what will happen and what Samantha needs to do to break the cycle. You can even mumble the last sentence simultaneously with Samantha without a problem. As expected, Samantha walks through various emotional stages. From amazement and despair to fear and anger. Ending via a rebellious, fatalistic phase into getting the revelation where she suddenly realizes (although she has experienced that day already a thousands times) how she can solve the problem.
It's kind of weird. I'm not really a fan of chic flicks. But because of the cyclic aspect and the sophisticated analysis of the different personalities, this high school drama was still fascinating. The interpretations also surprised me in a way. You can't say those girls are sympathetic, but gradually their intricate characters are revealed and you start to pity them. Especially Deutch delivered a brilliant performance. She looks like a fragile doll. A kind of "Holly Hobbie"-like Gillian Anderson. A lovely girl with an innocent appearance. You don't see her as an arrogant, hateful and selfish person. The rest of the ladies are cut from the same cloth with their specific deep-rooted emotional issues. I hope they aren't so vicious in reality.
The ultimate life lesson in the end is quite obvious. It may be a bit of an exaggerated arthritis-causing waving with the index finger in a moralistic way, but ultimately it's a truism. Perhaps some individuals in this world should focus more on the important things of life, instead of merely being busy with their own status. However, the "I" culture and social pressure are such that it's almost impossible for young people to see this. Perhaps this film should be added to the school curriculum used nowadays. However, I can imagine that some of those like-minded girls are shocked when they see the denouement. Shocked about Samantha's fate. But most probably they are happily giggling again the next day while bullying the lesser beauties. Oh well. But remember girls: "Karma is a bitch!".
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on uwantme2killhim?
ikkegoemikke
"Why did you stab your friend? For the greater good.I'm a hero.""Uwantme2killhim?" is based once again on true events. And yet afterwards I doubted whether this was indeed a true story, because this mysterious and quite ingeniously put together story seemed unlikely. In retrospect this ought to be a film adaptation of a real life situation in 2003 in Manchester. In fact, I just can't tell anything about this film because it would reveal too much. It's a clever devised scheme and again it shows the dangers and the dark side of the internet. The world wide web (and the used applications in those days) was still in its infancy. It looked a bit primitive and nobody really worried about security. Neither did Mark (Jamie Blackley) who used an MSN-stylish chat program on a daily base where he had a sort of cyber-relationship with Rachel (Jamie Winstone). The judge in this case expressed it as follows : "Skilled writers of fiction would struggle to conjure up a plot such as that which arises here". And this statement is really not exaggerated. You can safely describe it as the most perfect staged suicide.
Mark virtually lost his heart to Rachel, someone he has never met before and whose home situation isn't too rosy. Mark however is Mr. Popular at school: charming, smooth, handsome and intelligent. He's such a teenager with whom everyone wants to be friends and all girls fall in love with. This in contrast to John (Toby Regbo), Rachel's brother, who's constantly bullied and also looks like a meager, pathetic and timid boy. At the insistence of Rachel, Mark extends his umbrella over John and gradually a strange relationship grows between the two teenagers. The moment Rachel disappears and John comes around with the statement that she was killed by her boyfriend Kevin (Mingus Johnston), Mark is determined to take revenge. And then MI5 appears on the scene in the person of Janet (Liz White) who should stay away from Kevin and also claims that Mark is suited to be a secret agent. Now it all seems to be completely unbelievable.
The two protagonists left an undeniable, impressive impression. Blackley and Regbo fit perfectly in their roles. Blackley as the ever popular and determined teenager who's out for revenge. And Regbo as the pathetic outcast who's unable to maintain social contacts (except probably anonymous on the internet). He reminded me of Toby from Harry Potter. That same sad look. Two opposites that fit perfectly together: the tough one opposite the weakling who needs to be protected for others and especially himself. Although the story seems impossible, Douglas manages to make a fascinating film. This thanks to the pursued pace and the use of flashbacks.
"Uwantme2killhim?" is, despite its being set in the corny era in the history of the internet, still relevant and shows the consequences of using internet without parental supervision (now I sound old-fashioned) and how an individual can be moved to commit ill deeds in a shrewd and manipulative way. It's not quality cinema, but intriguing enough with a surprising denouement. In conclusion you can say it's something frightening and worrying that can happen in the glory days of todays social networking.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Beyond the Reach
ikkegoemikke
"We had a deal. And where I come from, a deal is a deal."It's so much fun to watch a movie in which two individuals chase each other and a cat and mouse game begins resulting in a battle to the death. Recently we saw two Hollywood stars try this theme in "Killing Season". It wasn't exactly an impressive film and after a while the ping-pong game between the two opponents started to irritate. For "Beyond the reach" an old class act of Hollywood was recruited. Only this time it's a unilateral hunt pattern that's being showed here. Unfortunately, the film collapses like a failed soufflé at the end. For once it's something that most film critics unanimously agree with. This time there are no diametrically opposed camps with contrarian views. This film had a promising start with chilling tension and an acclaimed chemistry between the two main characters. But the absurd and completely messed up ending screwed it completely and made absolutely no sense.
Madec (Michael Douglas) is a pedantic rich man with an arrogant attitude, who acts as if the whole universe turns around his own little person. He arrives in a tiny village along the Mojave desert to hunt a bighorn (probably a missing trophy on the wall). Ben (Jeremy Irvine) is hired for this task. He's a young guy who's well known as the best tracker in that environment. Before you know it, they are on the move in a giant fairground attraction on 6 wheels (worth $ 500,000 and imported) equipped with satellite telephone, espresso machine, microwave oven and a remote-controlled music system. Madec has spared no expense for this trip and is also equipped with a Steyr Scout 308 imported from Austria. In retrospect, he's also quite generous when it appears that he doesn't really have a permit to shoot down the rare animal. Madec is a typical snob who thinks everything is for sale. Until the hunt ends in a catastrophe and he accidentally shoots the local desert dweller Charlie. Charlie is someone Ben knew for a long time already and probably learned him some tricks of survival and how to live in the wilderness. How it proceeds can be guessed easily. Ben suddenly becomes the hunted one in this relentless, scorching desert.
The last movie I've watched with Douglas starring in, is "Last Vegas". Overall this wasn't a bad film and I watched it with pleasure. Yet Douglas fits better in a role as a charismatic manipulator and overwhelming bastard. A role as in "Falling Down" or "Fatal Attraction". It was a pleasure to see him again shining as a sadistic,unassailable bad ass. Irvine also meets the expectations and apparently spent several hours in the gym. His upper body is more muscular than the one he showed in "The railway man." His character stands in stark contrast to that of Douglas. An orphaned young man whose girlfriend just left him to start her studies at the university and for whom everyday life is financially more difficult than that of Madec. His battle against the elements in the desert was realistic and proved again he owns some excellent acting skills. Also the people of the makeup department deserve a pat on the shoulder.
The highlight of the film is undeniably the acting of Douglas. The sadistic game that he plays in the sweltering desert and how he enjoys seeing his prey slowly but surely reaching the end, is absolutely top notch acting. The absolute worst part is the denouement. Not that it's inconceivable (because everything can be bought with money), but it's so abrupt. An excellent movie with an intriguing interplay that's being performed for more than an hour, is being reduced into a pale third-rate thriller in sheer 10 minutes. Was there a plausible ending, than this would have been a masterful film.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Spare Parts
ikkegoemikke
"No matter what happens up there, I don't want the word "Hooters" coming out of your mouth."Is your mood not that positive and you've lost your faith in things, then I advise you to go and watch this movie, because this is a feel-good movie of the first rank. After watching this "everything-is-possible" movie, maybe you're going to realize that things aren't that bad and that for every hopeless situation there's a solution. You should only believe in it and grab every opportunity with both hands. Nothing seems impossible as long as you don't waste your perseverance. Voila, thus the positive tone of this film has been set. It's a film that contains all the ingredients needed to make some kind of Disney-like story in which a group of students without a future (and some without identity) and looked at as outcasts and hopeless underdogs, have to compete against individuals who have everything and whose future looks promising. Without much effort you can mention countless movies dealing with the struggle of the weak against the strong (like "The Karate Kid", "October Sky", "The Blind Side", "Forrest Gump", "Major League" ...)
"Spare Parts" also belongs in this list. Young people of Mexican descent, most undocumented, are attending a high school in Phoenix and being assisted by passionate teachers and an enthusiastic director (Jamie Lee Curtis), despite their sometimes desperate situation, so they can obtain a proper education. Fredi Cameron (George Lopez), an engineer, is apparently desperately looking for a job and therefore applies for the vacant position as temporary science teacher. At the insistence of Oscar (Carlos Pena Vega), who due to the lack of a birth certificate can't enlist in the US Army, Fredi accompanies a group of students to compete in a national robot competition against renowned universities such as MIT and Virginia Tech.
The sad thing about such "underdog-contending-with-a-superior-group" films, is that the outcome is already known before the film started. An additional issue covered in this film is the problem of people living illegally in the USA. The constant threat of being arrested and deported, is regularly brought up. Furthermore, the known clichés aren't eschewed either. The sympathetic teacher who acts as a father figure and apparently suffers of a trauma out of the past (although this is not really explained in detail in this film). The romance that blossoms between him and fellow teacher Marisa Tomei (Gwen Kolinsky), a single mother who also happens to know a bit of programming. The animosity between the young people that slowly turns into an intense friendship. And of course the ultimate denouement which is so obvious. Although I had to restrain myself from spontaneously bursting into an applause. But that's usually the objective of such a movie.
Certainly you can't say this film is truly original, but the performances are admirable. The diversity of the teenagers and their array of talents ensure both funny and heartfelt moments. Maybe at times a little bit too corny. Oscar is the driven leader. Christian (David Del Rio) is the intellectual who has a proper scientific solution for every problem posed. Lorenzo (Jose Julian) is the electronics specialist and Hector (JR Villarreal) is not the brightest of them all but surely is useful when it comes to lifting things. Both the interaction between these characters and the way they build a prototype with cheap material and spare parts (even tampons solve a problem) creates humorous moments. And I thought Jamie Lee Curtis was a surprise as a supporting act. A director who uses non-conventional methods for running a school. Brilliant at times.
"Spare Parts" certainly isn't a blockbuster and will appear in the VOD circuit. It's no more than a TV movie based on a true story, as so many movies have already been broadcasted. The most captivating moment was when Jamie Lee Curtis announced the results via the intercom, and you see that nobody is really listening. A brief moment so meaningful : a school community where certain individuals do well-intentioned efforts and you realize that this school community show no interest in it at all. Fortunately, it's not always like that !
More reviews here
Movie comment on Alien: Covenant
ikkegoemikke
"They disobeyed a direct order.She buried her husband.
No, Karine, it's not that.
They don't trust me.
And they don't trust me for the same reason the company didn't trust me … to lead this mission."
I never thought I would ever ask the following question: "Mr. Scott, could you draw a line under the whole Alien franchise and concentrate on other projects? Please?". As an "Alien" fan of the first hour, I was deeply disappointed about this film. In hindsight I thought "Exodus : Gods and Kings" was even better. It's best they forget about "Alien : Covenant Sequel" which is scheduled to appear in 2019.
I was actually more excited about "Prometheus" than about this creation. I ignored the whole fuss about the religious and existential aspects in "Prometheus". In my opinion "Prometheus" was a relief after the disastrous parts III and IV of the "Alien" saga. Admittedly, the xenomorphs weren't omnipresent in "Prometheus". But the graphics were unprecedented and made my SF heart race again. Scott brought a breath of fresh wind in this SF horror. In "Alien: Covenant" it's more like a used wind. On the one hand, the functional goal of this film is the cause of this. After all, it's just a bridge between the "Prometheus" project and the older "Alien" work. But on the other hand, it's the ease with which this movie is made that lies at the base. Because ultimately it's nothing but a recycling of old material.
In "Prometheus" a spacecraft was launched into space to search for the so-called creators ("Engineers") of humanity. In the end, they discover that these creators want to wipe their creations of the table. The end of the film shows a glimpse of creatures that cause death and destruction in the "Alien" saga afterwards.
Now we see the spacecraft "Covenant", loaded with colonists and embryos, which (as in "Passengers") is heading for a planet in another solar system to set up a new colony. Until the ship is hit by a "neutrino burst" and the crew is shaken roughly out of their artificial sleep. When one of the crew members receives a signal from John Denver's "Take me home" during a repair, they set course to the origin of the signal without hesitation. And thus they end up on a planet with similar living conditions as on Earth. Moreover, they find traces of a previous landing.
Despite the fact that "Alien: Covenant" is no more than a link between the "Prometheus" narrative and the original first episode, this movie started promising. In retrospect, however, it's nothing more than a rehashing of previously used ideas. Even the numerous Aliens didn't impress me. The aggressive and intimidating look of the space monster in the first films ensured some terrifying movie moments. In this film, they weren't exactly very intelligent and far from slimy. The only original twist in this film was the side those creatures chose to burst out of a human body this time.
As a die-hard fan of the Alien saga, I was waiting impatiently (even though I'm not in favor of prequels and sequels) for this new episode and I was also expecting big things. Therefor it's a great disappointment when I saw how such an original and infamous epic story was reduced to the level of a meaningless, brain-dead soap purely based on commercial considerations.
Even though the visual aspect was of an unprecedented level (after all Ridley Scott was holding the reins) and the first half hour (despite the cliché content) was promising, I came to the conclusion that the obtained result was shamefully bad. The Aliens weren't terrifying and at one point they looked like the Velociraptors from "Jurassic Park". Some scenes were basically moronic. And be honest, Katherine Waterston will never be able to match Ripley's masterly played character. The only plus and admirable part was the double role of Michael Fassbender.
When are they going to realize in Hollywood when a sequel to a successful film has nothing significantly contribute to the story and just simply repeats parts of the original (repackaged), one can better refrain from this release. But I get it. The movie has gained a loyal crowd of fans who look forward to any new episode. It doesn't matter how bad it is, there'll always be a huge audience to check it out. In most cases this enthusiasm is being followed by disillusion. There are countless other examples. From "Die Hard" to "Terminator". Or take a look at "Beverly Hills cop", "Nightmare on Elm street" and "Home alone".
The pilot film is sensational and unique. In some cases, the sequel offers added value and is highly entertaining. But from then on, it usually goes downhill. There's nothing great about these sequels. The only reason for their existence is pure commercial. Shame on you Mr. Scott. To be honest, I never expected you to fall for that.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on Bushwick
ikkegoemikke
"I mean it's more tactical.This isn't an attack.
This is an invasion."
There's one thing this film surprised me with. And that's the speed at which the violence begins. One moment Lucy (Brittany Snow) walks with her boyfriend through a subway station. The next moment, he's lying dead next to her and in the background you can hear the sound of automatic guns and screaming people in panic. Turns out a war started in this part of New York. A kind of American Civil War in guerrilla style. The sound effects and the way in which the camera follows fleeing Lucy looks a lot like a third person shooter. Even Lucy's sister Belinda (Angelic Zambrana) thought the neighbors were playing "Call of Duty" all the time.
It's only when Lucy is rescued by Stupe (Dave Bautista), a concierge with a military background, this realistic looking film turns into a survival journey through a suburban district of New York. Immediately I had to think of movies like "No Escape". But also of older hit-movies such as "Escape from New York" and the magnificent film "Warriors". A turbulent flight through neighborhoods where street gangs suddenly take up arms against the forces who try to take over Bushwick and punks who take advantage of the lawlessness to rob neighborhood stores. And all this looks as if it's filmed in one take.
The reason why those troops are penetrating this neighborhood and total anarchy breaks out, sounds quite ridiculous and unlikely the first instance. But thinking further about it afterwards, you could say it isn't. Such a situation could occur somewhere in the world, given the interracial and domestic conflicts that arise everywhere. But apart from this original approach, this film has little to offer. The rest of it is just about the two main characters trying to escape the violence in a city that looks like a battlefield. Even the noisy and rebellious looking local residents who are waving with their illegal weapons excitedly, don't make it more interesting. Although some of them were in a high stage of enthusiasm.
In addition to the fact that it's all simplistic and there aren't really surprising developments, there were also some things that were quite annoying. For example, the continuous mumbling of Dave Bautista almost the entire movie. Besides the emotional closing argument, his oral contribution was limited. He resembled Rambo who also mumbled the whole movie in those days. And although he seems to have a lot of military experience, he continuously refused to use more sophisticated firearms. I've lost count of the number of times I got pissed because they ignored modern automatic guns, which were lying around for the taking. They stubbornly held on to their small handguns. I would have known better.
I'm not sure if it was the intention to make a political statement. If so, they didn't quite succeed in doing that. Before you know it they shifted back to making a superficial action film with Jews jumping around with Uzi's. In general, the acting isn't so bad. Brittany Snow is doing her best as an emerging survival expert. Dave Bautista's posture is very suitable for playing the character Stupe. His physique and rough-hewn behavior makes an extremely dangerous neanderthal of him (mumbling included). And if you're looking for a movie with a denouement so non-compliant compared to the rest, don't look any further. Believe me. So, "Bushwick" isn't special, but you don't need survival skills to watch it entirely.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on VANish
ikkegoemikke
"Max, hide the beers. I mean, who gives a sh*t, man. The whole 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 load 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 angry 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.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Unlocked
ikkegoemikke
"Send a car for my wife and flowers. And by flowers, I mean whatever it takes to keep me off the couch tonight."Take any "Jason Bourne" episode, mix it with lets say a "Mission Impossible" or recently "Stratton" and add a little bit of humor. As a result you'll get something similar as "Unlocked". So, it isn't exactly original. It's entertaining, but it's also an inextricable tangle of intrigues. At one point you're wondering who can be trusted and who can't be. The film fits in perfectly with today's news. Every few months there's a terrorist attack by some extremist organization in Europe. I just hope this film won't cause some crack-brained organizations to get bad ideas.
Maybe it's me, but at times I didn't have a clue what the people concerned were talking about. Apparently, your level of intelligence should be very high to be able to function in the world of intelligence services as a secret agent. Sometimes conclusions are drawn and decisions are made at such a scary rate. The fight against terrorism is a difficult task for a reason. Is it possible that the vast majority of employees can't even follow the reasoning of their superior?
Noomi Rapace, who impressed me more in "Child 44" than in "Prometheus", is playing the experienced agent Alice Racine, who has a conscience problem after a terrorist attack in Paris. Due to an enormous guilt-feeling she leaves her job at MI5. And now she works for a social service which she uses as a cover to signal suspicious developments to MI5. Until she's summoned one day to question a terrorist suspect to get information about a planned attack. But soon, she realizes she got caught up in a hornet's nest where nobody can be trusted and with an impossible task waiting for her. On the one hand, she has to make sure she stays out of the hands of another organization with an entirely different agenda. And on the other hand, it's a race against the clock to make sure London won't suffer a chemical attack. Yes, it isn't boring for Alice.
The story on its own is actually a mess and sometimes quite difficult to follow. If you are a spy-thriller enthusiast and you have already seen a lot of movies from this genre, you won't find novelties that'll overwhelm you. The whole movie is a series of chases, short-lived but energetic action scenes and high-tech espionage behind the scenes. But, above all, the huge amount of plot turns will make it rather laughable than surprising. I would not even have been surprised if at the end the imam was an accomplice of some kind of candid camera program who announces that it was all just a joke. That's the level I'm talking about.
What else is there to admire? The performances of acclaimed famous film stars? The Swedish Noomi Rapace is perfect for this part as the female Jason Bourne. An intelligent, cold-blooded person who knows how to handle herself in this hard-core spy world. They were even able to convince Michael Douglas to play a small but not so insignificant role. The least impressive role was given to Orlando Bloom, who tries to bring some humor into the film with his heavy English accent and attitude. However, it is John Malkovich who steals the show as CIA chief Bob Hunter. His facial expression, that seemingly nonchalant smile and a moment of uncontrolled behavior during a video conference. A clear proof that one needs to be a bit insane to work for the intelligence service. But despite the excellent acting and the stars who appear on the screen, this movie can't avoid to get the label "mediocrity". It's just another spy thriller which is momentary entertaining but eventually will be forgotten.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on Realive
ikkegoemikke
"Imagine you were born totally aware and conscious of everything around you. Conscious you were coming out of someone else's body. Joined to it by a bloody cord that you are completely covered in blood. Conscious of the dry air entering your lungs for the first time. The sharp sounds in your ears. The blinding light in your eyes. Conscious that your bones are unbearably soft and your life is so fragile, it could disappear at any moment. That's what being resurrected is like."Perhaps the initial idea of Marc Jarvis (Tom Hughes) wasn't so bad. The moment he hears he's terminally ill and only has a few months to live, he decides to get himself cryogenically preserved. In other words, he'll turn into a Popsicle. Not forever. Only until the medical world is capable to heal him from his disease, after which he can lead a healthy life again. A great idea but with one disadvantage. And that's something Marc is going to find out afterwards. The downside is that you leave your loved ones behind as well. And it might be that the spirit of the age has changed drastically. Physically, you may be in first-class condition, but the mental state might be a problem.
"Realive" is a grade-A SF with its "Oblivion"-like interiors and appearance. At the same time, it also raises a deep-philosophical topic about eternal life and postponing death. It's not a futuristic machine like in "Elysium" that fixes imperfections and medical problems. It's the evolution of medical technologies which makes it possible to perform medical interventions in an adequate way. But as the movie progresses, you notice that the movie contains a sophisticated romantic story as well. A story about a complicated relationship in which an eternal love is hidden. Marc and Naomi (Oona Chaplin) are having an on-again, off-again relationship for years now. And just as they come to the conclusion that they are made for each other, a deadly disease is the party pooper. From then on they know there's no future for them as a happy, elderly couple.
The film is fascinating enough but also extremely slow. Most of the film takes place in a clinically white, state-of-the-art facility where Marc awakens from his cryogenetic sleep. Not that he's physically the same as in the past, because a lot of his body is being reconstructed with cloned bones, muscles and nerves. Only his brains and some vital organs are retained. He's also connected to a high-tech device using a kind of umbilical cord. His new mechanical mother so to say. And thanks to the "Mind writer" he's able to save parts of his memories. So be prepared to see a lot of flashbacks about his youth and the chaotic relationship with Naomi.
Ultimately, you can say this movie is a modern "Romeo and Julia meets Frankenstein". A film that deals with eternal love and the resurrection of a comatose person. I recently saw "The Lazarus effect" which had a kind of identical subject. Only the imaging of future medical techniques and treatments are created in a very convincing and realistic way. Unfortunately for Marc, emotional relationship between individuals in this futuristic world isn't the same anymore. Eroticism and love are banished to foolish work-groups and are seen as something banal and unnecessary. I'm sure he didn't expect that to happen. Both the outstanding performances of Tom Hughes and Charlotte Le Bon as caring nurse Elizabeth, as the philosophical moral, make "Realive" an engaging and emotional film at the same time. Maybe it's indeed better for an individual's existence to be limited to one particular era. Physiological issues can be circumvented and improved. It's the mental state that can cause problems. So don't expect a happy end in this movie.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on Begin Again
ikkegoemikke
"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.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on La leggenda del pianista sull'oceano
ikkegoemikke
There are some films that,despite having such a miserable long playing time, won't bore you quickly.However,there are films which have a regular playing time and still bore you to death.In the first category I include "The Lord of the Rings","The Wolf of Wall Street" and "The Shawshank Redemption".You can add this one,which takes about 165 minutes,to this list,because this is a breathtaking and fascinating masterpiece.A musical journey told in the form of a fairy tale,that grabs you by the throat in the beginning and releases you when the credits start.I'm not really a jazz enthusiast or a piano recitals specialist,but it aroused my musical curiosity.Sometimes it feels as if you are getting musical education and you're actually continuously looking at some virtuosic piano playing like in "Grand Piano".There is however a big difference with the latter.And that's the fact that you stay intrigued and want to watch further so you can see how it unfolds.And you don't need toothpicks so your eyes stay open.It's not a recent film, but there was somebody who was praising this movie on some web page and I had to see it.
The whole story is told from the perspective of Max Tooney (Pruitt Taylor Vince) who played brass trumpet along with a legendary pianist in an orchestra on a cruise ship called "The Virginian".This legendary pianist once was abandoned by some poor immigrants and was left to be found in the class of the wealthier passengers, probably to ensure his future,but was eventually discovered and adopted by Danny Boodmann (Bill Nunn),a coal-man in the engine room.The young boy was named Danny Boodmann T.D. Lemon Nineteen Hundred.Or just plain simply 1900, his year of birth.To avoid problems with certain instances 1900 lived deep in the hull of the cruise ship, until the day Danny died.Then he suddenly disappears.Until he reappears one night,sitting behind a piano and playing it in a wonderful way.He'll become the most virtuoso fabulous pianist in the world who doesn't have the courage to set foot on shore.
It's directed by Giuseppe Tornatore and is based on the monologue Novecento of the writer Alessandro Baricco.Overall,I thought there were three major chapters in this film.The first part can be described as "Oliver Twist on The Titanic".The same atmosphere and guidance as in Titanic,but without an iceberg anywhere so the crossing to America was completed without a hitch and one could behold the Statue of Liberty after arrival. A kind of Walt Disney part where the first years of 1900 were told in an amusing way. The second part is the largest and most musical part. A series of musical interludes, including the piano duel against Jelly Roll,"The man who invented jazz" as people said,and 1900.Ennio Morricone provided the musical frame.So you know that this is a guarantee for masterful pieces of music.The third part is the most philosophical and tragicomic area.The attempt that Max is doing to get 1900 to leave the old cruise ship before it gets demolished.Three chapters which flow into each other fluently.In the beginning it alternates between the past and the present by means of flashbacks.An engaging,comical and touching film that continues to fascinate and amaze.
Tim Roth,who I recently saw starring in "Broken" and also has an impressive resume on his name,takes care of the lead role as the adult 1900.I think he's a wonderful actor who just has an innate calmness, interspersed with a truly sad, melancholic posture and gaze.The childish amazement about everyday things and the otherworldliness are expressed by him in a simple,unaffected way.He seems like a humble, timid and kind person,until he uses a heartfelt "asshole".A pianist who uses his emotions and the observed characteristics of people in his piano playing and only lives for his music. During a recording that was made by a music company,which would make him world famous and very rich,you can hear the tone and atmosphere of his piano performance slowly turn into a very intimate timbres merely by the appearance of a lovely lady.Even the deep philosophical reasoning in the end sounded acceptable, although 1900 didn't enjoy academic education.He gave a simplistic though rational explication about his state of mind and fear of the unknown.
Pruitt Taylor Vince takes on the role of Max,the lone musician who is forced to sell his instrument.He wasn't really known to me.When I read his biography,he seemed to have made quite a furore in the years 80-90. He has won an Emmy for his role in "Murder One".It looks as if he has been forgotten a bit and only played small parts in some other films.Probably those parts were so small that I can't even remember them.All in all I found him fitting for this part although there was sometimes a case of overacting and he wasn't really in sync with the rudderless ship during the storm as he was wobbling all over the place.This stormy scene was for me rather too dramatic and slapstick-like.Pretending to be seasick,swaying back and forth and doing the waltzing dance while sitting behind the piano.
Although this film is appropriate for it,it still didn't become an overly grand Hollywood spectacle.It was sometimes overwhelming and impressive.The moment someone sees the Statue of Liberty and the whole ship starts waving with handkerchiefs and everybody is shouting out of intense joy (while the upper class sticks to a polite subdued applause) was the first goosebumps moment. After the umpteenth time however,despite the successful comedic approach in the end,it was a bit too much.Also the piano duel was a highlight where it was indisputable that 1900 played in such a way that it looked like he was playing with four hands (and the highlight of the smoldering cigarette of course).Yet at one time I had reached a saturation point.A superb duel and brilliant expressions,but still it was excessively long.But these tiny remarks don't outweigh the greatness of this film. Brilliant, excellent movie !
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on The Counselor
ikkegoemikke
"A man would give entire nations to lift grief off his heart and yet, you cannot buy anything with grief, because grief is worthless."This is a difficult movie to rate. I have mixed feelings about it. The first part is terribly tedious and boring. A series of hugely pretentious dialogues and incomprehensible philosophical reasoning. It is a montage of various fragmentary issues that make it difficult to sense the vibe of the movie and to understand what it's about. Also there are subjects used that were completely beside the point in my eyes (the erotic beginning for starters). Also the total absence of any explanation of how they ended up in this situation, makes it uneasy to follow the storyline.
Ridley Scott, of course known for his masterpieces "Blade Runner" and "Alien",didn't succeed in keeping up the momentum. You first need to endure a full hour to finally realize what the contents of the movie is and after that you can enjoy a rough settlement by the drug cartel. And that's the double feeling about this film. The first part gets a unsatisfactory grade. The second part is the counterbalance.
In terms of characters Brad Pitt tops them all. A savvy person with a reserved and confident attitude that apparently has everything well organized. When something starts to go wrong, he can disappear instantly and retire for the rest of his life. His white suit and Stetson on his long hair gives him a dignified appearance and a rebellious appearance at the same time. Michael Fassbender as "The Counselor" was convincing as a lawyer , but what the hell is he doing among those criminals ? He looks like a choirboy who will start to cry when slapped in his face. This is also something that is not really clear . How did he end up with the drug lord Reiner ? Is he also a kind of counselor as Tom Hagan in "The Godfather" ? I don't think so. He would earn enough money and wouldn't be involved in the drug deal that ultimately will bring him down. Money problems perhaps ? I don't think so either since he can travel all the way to Amsterdam to choose a diamond.
Javier Bardem was also brilliant as the eccentric Reiner. He looked just like a tanned Tom Jones. Cruz played only a minor role and she was just a religious prude naive woman who was constantly upset by the others. The only one I hated instantly, was Cameron Diaz. She is as hot as a typical non-functional oven and she's clearly getting older resulting in slight hanging skin at some places. Besides the fact that she plays a dual role in a sly way, she tries to shock sexually, with as highlight the sticky wet routine on the windshield of Reiner's car.
The story on its own is dead simple and it doesn't need 2 hours to be told. It took so miserable long because of the dialogues as mentioned earlier . It was terribly annoying after a while . Even with subtitles in English , it didn't make any sense to me sometimes. Everybody seemed like having an academically degree in languages. It seemed as if they had to transform every dialogue into an anthology of an intellectual high level with a lot of difficult words. Even the drug baron Reiner and someone from the drug cartel used those intricate descriptions. They sound so philosophical that I doubt they could understand themselves. A fragment of the Dutch diamond expert sounds as follows : "To partake of the stone's endless destiny, is that not the meaning of adornment? To enhance the beauty of the beloved is to acknowledge both her frailty and the nobility of that frailty. At our noblest, we announce to the darkness that we will not be diminished by the brevity of our lives.". Even after reading it three times again, i still can't understand the deeper meaning .
The most impressive scene was the liquidation of Brad Pitt. It was filmed fairly explicit and gruesome. The best dialogue was between Pitt and Fassbender about Snuff movies. The funniest thing was the fact that they twice used a joke that's often told here amongst friends. The one the motorcyclist told about the dog food. The second about the Pope in Mexico. Funny to experience that.
Final conclusion: an intricate dead boring first hour as a precursor to a quite impressive offensive end. Ultimately, on average, it is still not sufficient.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on The Lords of Salem
ikkegoemikke
"Bleed us a king!"I must admit that I've actually never heard of Rob Zombie. Not as a musician and certainly not as a film producer. To my surprise, he has an impressive list of things he achieved musically for movies and in directing movies. Even "Haloween" and "Haloween II" were on that list. The list of musical contributions is even more impressive. But remembering names was never my strong point. But "The Lords of Salem" is not exactly a good reference for our dear friend Rob.
However I think this movie had all the right ingredients to become a great movie. Especially the first hour is really enjoyable with the gloomy and sometimes creepy atmosphere. The intro was a little bit of a disappointment, with the old witches dancing naked around a fire and chanting spellbinding lyrics. They really looked terrible. They looked a lot like paper pulp made hand puppets. But what can you expect when you read the following in the trivia on IMDb:. "There are no digital effects in the film". Yes that was obvious. Regardless of this small detail, this introduction gave me a feeling of expectation and I was hoping that this was the start of a creepy satanic movie with a pack of witches in the lead.
The next image is the taste-full butt of Sheri Moon Zombie, Rob's wife and in terms of female nudity worth while to look at, who plays a local DJ called Heidi, who recently kicked her drugs habit. At a sudden moment she receives an anonymous delivery of a vinyl record from the band "The Lords" and plays it at home. And then hell breaks loose. The next half hour I could only look in an approving way. The atmosphere was dark, menacing and subtly portrayed. The corridor with the ominous looking door at the end. The lamps that hung symmetrically in a row. The sudden appearances of naked wrinkled witches in the bathroom and the kitchen. All this resulted in a magnificent creepy feeling that could lead to a seemingly terrible end.
From then on it goes downhill for me. Heidi starts to get bizarre and abstract delusions. She lapses back into her addiction and puts us on a hallucinatory trip with bizarre images that gave me a "What the hell is this" feeling and several times I had to frown my forehead. A yeti-like monster that appears growling, ghost figures with gray waving masks (I guess it's a symbolic representation of fire-melted faces) ripping out her intestines, masturbating priests, Heidi doing a rodeo on a goat, Heidi dancing erotically with a KISS impersonator, bizarre melting images,flashes of demonic figures and eventually Satan himself that looks like a small pig or a plastic Teletubby hopping around. That really didn't make any sense to me. I myself am not religious, but I fear that the real devout people may be offended. The content of blasphemy is kind of explicit. Its use is justified as it's about devil worshipers who reject everything that is divine .
In the end it was just a variation on the theme of "Rosemary's Baby" but terribly elaborated. The end was in a kind of theater where a select audience could watch the final scene (probably people evoked by the music). The three modern witches who had settled in the house where Heidi lived, to make sure that the ancient ritual wasn't interrupted by some stranger, performed in such a way that many abstract and modern theater companies would be jealous.
For me it wasn't such a great horror movie (if we can call it that way). It had a promising start and finished in a really crazy way. I'm pretty sure this last part was created under the influence of some kind of chemical substance. I'm not going to avoid other movies from Rob Zombie, because even though this was a freaky experience, I am pretty sure that this man is capable to produce an outstanding and obscure horror movie.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on Beacon Point
ikkegoemikke
"This was once all Cherokee land. It was considered sacred ground, and trespassers would be killed on sight."At the very least, you can say that "Beacon point" is a weird and rather strange movie. After seeing it you're wondering what in God's name it was about anyway. I started watching it without any clue what it would be about. And by the time the end credits rolled over the screen, I still didn't have a clue. In the first 15 minutes there are also some events which in hindsight had nothing to do with the whole story. It starts with a Predator-like scene where two hunters, who look like they have just returned from a Vietnam tour, are chased by something unknown in the forest. Then we see Drake (John Briddell) having an argument with his boss about his criminal past. The result is not too beneficial for Drake. Let's say a fallen antler with sharp ends plays a main role.
Then there are some facts that aren't plausible and realistic enough too me. First of all the volunteers who want to follow the Appalachian Trail aren't asking any questions about the person Drake. I suppose they've paid a lot of money for this trip. And yet, nobody is wondering if Drake is the official guide and if he's experienced enough. The participants meekly submit their participation papers and follow the completely unknown and not officially introduced trail master.
Even when they find a corpse after a bit of walking, Drake tells them it's just an unfortunate incident and that it's probably the result of a hungry bear the victim ran into while hiking through the forest. So, no problem. And they continue their trip in the assumption that someone else will solve the problem I guess. I know for certain I would turn around, because I wouldn't want to encounter that same hungry bear somewhere.
It's also bizarre that in the rest of the film these events aren't mentioned again. As if it never happened. It seems like they've used these events to get a standard playtime for the movie. It seems like random events which have nothing to do with the story line. After these unusual occurrences, we get a lot of walking and puffing. The same as in "A walk in the woods" and "Wild".
The participants are a colorful group consisting of Brian (Jason Burkey) and Cheese (RJ Shearer), two brothers who recently discovered they were brothers. Then there is Dan (Eric Goins), a jolly fat guy who left Silicon Valley behind for a while. And Zoe is an ex-real estate broker who concluded that she didn't want to end up like her father and, as a tribute, wants to scatter her dad's ashes in the Appalachians. Before they realize it, they are lost and discover an ancient Indian cemetery and later on a bizarre totem. And that's when strange things start to happen at night and the group of hikers are the victims of nightmares and illnesses
Not only the course of the story and the cause of all this misery were strange. The most strange thing is that despite the unoriginal, bad dialogues, the ridiculous decisions and the total lack of explanation, I was fascinated by it in a certain way. There's a somewhat tense atmosphere. There are beautiful shots to admire made by a drone I guess. And the acting wasn't so bad after all (just ignore the dialogues). It's only the lack of knowing what happened actually that became an annoyance. Was it the trespassing of an old Indian cemetery that released an ancient curse? Or was it aliens that caused it all? Or did they eat some wrong mushrooms and became delirious? And why didn't they all get sick ? Believe me. You won't get an answer in the end. And the last images causes even more confusion and are a source of new speculations.
If you expected a type of "X-files" after seeing the cover, you'll be deeply disappointed. And you can hardly call it horror. There's not one creepy or scary scene in it. The only effect this film had on me was that I'm sure I'll once visit those Appalachian forests. And I'm certain there won't be any martians to haunt me at night.
More reviews here : bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on The Big Wedding
ikkegoemikke
"My mom is Jbuddist, which is Jewish slash Buddhist"Occasionally I have to give in and look at a "romcom" over the weekend. My wife is happy because she can see another chick flick. And I'm happy because my braincells get a rest once again while watching a movie. You really don't need them while watchting "The Big Wedding". The only reason why I wanted to watch this movie was the fact that there were quite a few big stars participating in it. Robert De Niro, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Robin Williams and Topher Grace. But a sublime cast can't always save a movie. That's cristal clear.
I have to admit, it's not a movie that completely sucks and it meets all the necessary requirements as the movie is about organizing and completing a wedding. It's one out of a dozen and can be added to the list of previous wedding movies such as "Father of the Bride", "My Big Greek Wedding", "Honeymoon in Vegas" and "Wedding Crashers". The latter is on a different level, but the typical cliche jokes are also in it. It looks as if Diana Keaton has a weak spot for such kind of movies. Again she shows up as a mother of one of the wedding couple. This time she's the mum of the groom.
Something inevitably always must be present in these movies ... A nearby pond. This is absolutely needed so that there's invariably a splashing water scene in the movie. Fetishists are waiting for this to appear so the tears of laughter roll down their cheeks. In "The Big Wedding" it was used twice. First time when the beautiful naked body of Ana Ayora disappears in it (The drooling part) and the second time as Robin Williams tumbles in it (The less drooling part). The latter has however retained greatly in terms of exaggerated acting and seems to have had a dose of sedatives so that he doesn't start trotting around in a hyper-kinetic way. Anyway, I thought for a moment that I had already seen this movie, but I confused this movie with "License to wed" in which he also played the role of a priest. Personally I thought the confession scene was extremely funny and hilarious. I even had to laugh briefly.
I thought the rest of the cast played on autopilot. Robert De Niro showed up again in his bathrobe and seemed to come straight out of "Meet the Fockers". Keaton looked like an old tart who realizes that her days of extreme sexual appetite are over, but still gets pleasantly surprised during the course of the story and discovers that those cobwebs suddenly disappeared. The dialogues between both were sometimes funny and entertaining. Susan Sarandon plays as always an old spinster. Katherine Heigl was there for the dramatic part. The most imaginative and funny role was played by Topher Grace as the not so bad looking doctor who's already 29 and never shagged anybody. The whole movie he's chasing the South-American Nuria like a turned on, horny little guy.
The inevitable misunderstandings follow each other in rapid succession. The divorced Don and Ellie need to fake that they are still married, with some uncomfortable situations as a result. The new girlfriend is pushed aside a bit what pisses her off and she takes revenge by unexpectedly appearing everywhere. The daughter is trying to get pregnant for years already and now has an allergic reaction to anything that has to do with babies. Eventually she turns out to be pregnant just as she broke up with the future father. Sigh ... The South-American girl first wants to start something exciting with the 29 year old son who is, as mentioned earlier, still a virgin. But after a friendly chat with the mother she doesn't want that anymore. As a result the son walks around like a frustrated teenager with his pants too tight. The handjob by the South American during dinner reminded me immediately of "Wedding Crashers". As icing on the cake it turns out that there are more persons who had an affair. Some even like to do it with someone of the same sex . Don't worry, no one will be offended , and life goes on as usual. Felt strange to me anyway.
Well, it was a fun movie just for passing time on a Sunday, and the benefit of such movies is that the playtime isn't that long. Afterwards you feel relaxed and you're happy you didn't end up in such a crazy family.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/2qtGQoc
Movie comment on All Is Lost
ikkegoemikke
Normally I start a review with a quote from the film in question. That's a bit difficult in this case since "All is lost" lacks any conversation. The only thing that would qualify is a frustrated cry of the famous F-word. For the rest it is just sloshing water, creaking wood, nois of hitting ropes and lots of rain and falling water, you hear throughout the film. I can understand his frustration, because how the hell is it possible to have a collision between your pleasure boat and a container on that immeasurable ocean while doing an afternoon nap ? It's difficult to call this movie unnerving exciting. I dare to say that it was dead boring after a certain time. The only decision I took after watching this film is that I'll never set foot on such a boat and float around on the ocean with nothing but water around you as far as you can look. And in the worst case, not only around you, but also down at you.
Robert Redford, the icon of the white screen, had to carry the complete movie. He was, after all, the only living figure in this wet movie. Besides an unidentified hand at the last moment. No idea what RR 's name was. Besides, there is a total lack of background information about his character. Except that we know where exactly he is sailing. I can't complain about his acting performance because this was sometimes astounding. The only thing that really amazed me was how stoically calm he was the whole time. A damn container makes a leak, no electricity or radio, a storm that shows up, the whole boat turns upside down, he hits his head against an iron pole, the boat is sinking, the lifeboat ends up in a storm, also turns upside down and then it catches fire ... but does he keep a straight face ? Yes sir ! He's a paragon of utmost restraint. I found this a bit exaggerated because I certainly would need a spare box of diapers in those circumstances ! The explanation might be that he's an experienced sailor. Yet this experienced sailor had to read a handbook on how to determine his position using the stars. And apparently he never used a sextant before. There were times when it was so predictable. I said at one time it wouldn't surprise me if "Jaws" would suddenly show up. Afterwards they wandered around his dinghy. And that his boat could sink at any moment, could not stop him to crawl aboard a second time. And off course the second time it went down.
The movie itself wasn't that bad, but it wasn't very entertaining either. And sailing seems to be a dull affair after all. The end was cheesy and followed the well known Hollywood guidelines. For me, the end would have gained enormously in strength, if at that ultimate moment RR wants to grasp the saving hand, he'dd be dragged down by a great white shark. But that is too exaggerated and would be enormously ironic.
More reviews here
Movie comment on Ender's Game
ikkegoemikke
There's only one kid on this launch with any brains at all so far, and that's Ender Wiggin.Brace yourself for again a graphically stunning looking SF, with a strong beginning, a story that will make you frown your eyebrows and a fairly disappointing end. It's again based on a book I haven't read. The good news is, it's not a very complicated story. It's not such a story you don't know what it's about, because you didn't read the book in which the details are usually described. You'll notice as the movie progresses that it's a youth book. I couldn't get rid of the impression that this was a kind of "Harry Potter in Space". A kind of magic boy possesses certain qualities that adults have long been looking for. He's repeatedly called "The One" (an echoing reverberating sound effect wouldn't be out of place here) and is apparently a wet dream of the leader of the cadet school (Harrison Ford). Of course, this little boy is looked at as an emerging hero and hailed for his intelligence that others apparently do not possess cause of a momentary brain disorder. Strange, because after all they also belong to the select group of highly intellectual kids. Well anyway, it leads to resentment, jealousy and hate. But our friend Ender eventually turns the tide and gathers together a fan base to protect the earth's population against the oncoming swarm of Formics.
As I said already, this SF is an eye catcher. I bet the "Special Effects" department has spent a lot of money on this one. It looks nice, crispy and flashy. As a SF fan you'll start to drool for sure. The comparison with recent works such as "Oblivion", "Elysium" and "Prometheus" is obvious. Even "Gravity" is included when it's about the images from space with a beautiful planet at the background. I even got flashbacks from earlier films like "Battlestar Galactica," "Independence Day" and "The Black Hole". Generally you can say that it looked fine and worked out into perfection. The space battles in both the simulator and the real one, looked pretty impressive. The alien spacecrafts that moved like a flock of starlings was magnificent to see. And indeed, the heroic deed by Mazer Rackham looked like a duplicate of scenes out of "Independence Day".
The performances were usually excellent. No Oscar material, but nothing that really annoyed me. Asa Butterfield was a convincing Ender. Harrison Ford was a confident Colonel who has no problem with the fact that they actually are training kid soldiers. Viola Davis, the psychologist on board, was a convincing motherly military. And the rest of the little ones did what they had to do: or they were from the beginning an adoring friend of Ender (Petra and Co) or buggers who immediately began to tease him. Moisos Arias was the best example. In Ender's place, I would have kicked this South American annoying brat into space.
The thing that started to annoy me was the content of the story. Indeed it is kept simple and rather childish. Initially I don't have a problem with that. The run-up to the training was fascinating to watch and kept my attention. I just started to question myself about the usefulness of the whole training since later on, they didn't make much use of it anyway. It looked like a sort of "Quidditch" but then in space suits. And you could also win the game by getting someone of your own team through the opponents gate, instead of throwing a ball ! It was a pleasure to see the various team members floating around in those glass balls. But that was it. Only some floating around! The idea of those little guys learning a kind of Lasergun teen game and afterwards using real war material to teach those aliens a lesson, kind of felt unreal and surealistic. The lack of explanation about the relationship between Ender and his brother Peter and sister Valentine was kind of a disappointment. I wanted to know more about that. It would have been interesting material. And as a grand finale Ender suddenly transformed into a Good Samaritan and was outraged about the fact they have lied to him. I thought they were preparing him for this task anyway and that he fully understood that. But no, the little fellow got extremely mad and suddenly he unravels the complete mystery and goes on his last mission as Admiral to accomplish a promise he made. Deep disappointment ! I can only conclude that it's a visually delightful film. The story is of a childish level, but is actually still a bridge too far for the youngest. But I found the end a huge letdown that screwed up the rest of the movie.
More reviews here
Showing items 276 – 300 of 630