Reviews

The movie tries what snatch did and failed. At first some fictional future is presented where the mob is almost at its end. Then we learn that some mobster has a price out for him so we get (in some flashy shots) introduced some killers...even some totally unrealistic ones...

well the movie basically tries to bring up some tempo by the way it's cut and the music is used but fails utterly at it. The story is totally horrible. The movie cannot focus on any given piece of itself for more than a minute and that really does hurt it.

Of course there are some laughs involved and acting is rather mediocre...Ben Affleck as "star" for this movie is pretentious as he has about 4 minutes of screen-time only.

The only good thing is that Alicia Keys doesn't fail as an actress and does a nice job.

3 out of 10.

And yes I've seen it in English.

This movie was set up after two successful short movies called Kampfansage. With a film budget of just 300.000 Euro and about 30 days too short this movie came in incredibly good. The market for German produced martial arts is virtually nil and this could be seen as a mile stone. Although It'll most probably not appear in German cinemas (except the Fantasy Filmfest 2005) it was shown with great success at a film festival in Shanghai and will be marketed in China.

The movie plays in the latter 2040's in a war tattered Germany. Europe and most probably the rest of the world has fallen into utter chaos after long years of fighting. Technology has vanished and the rise of martial arts has begun. An Evil ruler tried to conquer all of Germany and kill the present martial arts masters there. but was killed at the hands of the last remaining master. his children bosco and cleo now carry on his legacy and bring down the last master and his last disciple or so they thought...what will ensue now is a mix of nicely done battles and sometimes humor as well. Jaeger manages to mix it together despite lacking time and resources to shoot scenes the way they are shot in Asia or USA.

I'm giving it a 9 out of 10 for sheer innovation and fun value. I'll buy the DVD as soon as it hits the shelves...

This seamlessly puts itself in the line with a lot of other bad horror movies that flush out of the US movie-works lately. The story, a classic, group of young strangers came to a deserted place in the wilderness and separates themselves to get chopped to pieces except the 2 survivors. So this is a classic setup which is so stupid in itself, that even the movie tries to make fun of it. At one time an actress questions the act of going near something that stinks foul with something like "why are you going towards it?". By the way I found Hilton on equal acting level with their counterparts. But then again this movie didn't need acting. In the end it wasn't frightening, it wasn't scary and the story was badly drawn.

I just hope this stream of bad horror will end soon. A 2/10 from me for this waste of celluloid, time, money and everything else (even writing this comment).

This movie presented itself as a very bad slasher-movie indeed. There was no depth that could keep the viewer thrilled. The movie took its whole momentum from gore scenes and scream-esque shock effects. Although it was disgusting and the characters where a freak show it never was disturbing. Furthermore it was simply boring, there was no twist or catch and not one plotline got evolved. I know that Leatherface is a important part of US history (in that it shows degeneracy and incest in small outside towns) but remaking this not-so-bad movie into this monstrosity of a waste of money isn't understandable. Unfortunately the Director comes from there same town as I and it was his first major motion picture after some video clips. I doubt that the script has gotten him lots of options and Michael Bay as producer you should expect something very shallow but at least slightly entertaining. But this was only loud and undistinguishable noise in a sea of ordered information...not worth the celluloid 1 of 10.

Honestly I was shocked as I saw the 7.5 rating after seeing this film. The film misses almost every opportunity of showing some life. Most of the actors didn't do that well especially Gary Sinise who was about as lively as a stone. Technically there was nothing wrong with the film and a full audience of 600 people neither liked it. Maybe it was the whispering of mrs. Kidman which honestly was too much. OK I'm missing about 5 years to her age but I can't remember anyone including whispering so often when in a room. This is what I usually call unnatural acting or unnatural dialogues. I believe that a person could be broken into being a person like hers. But I doubt she would live, act or speak that way. Thus the movie failed to encapture an drama except for the great performance Anna Deavere Smith who was excellent as playing Silks mother.

Not worth the celluoid. Good for a bad evening in TV.

This is a movie were a lot of big stars come together and fail utterly. What was Soderbergh thinking? It seems like he tried to make an artful a movie as possible combining a lot of 'hip' techniques. There are these parallel enfolding stories about the actors / writers etc. and their roles in the film which are separated only by the hair color of Julia Roberts and the Camera. Which brings me to the worst aspect to the movie. Maybe Mr. Soderbergh didn't realize this, but 99% of the cinema audience don't want to see a movie which is almost always filmed with the dogma-esque handicam style. They also don't like very confusing stories which are tiresome and not worthy of attention. Not even the short appearances of Brad Pitt seemed to do something in favor of the film since the joy for the women in the audience was abruptly ended when the camera style changed (yet once again). I really can't make out anything good about the movie. Interestingly there are some (really not many) funny scenes. One including the Hitler-actor arguing with his writer/director whilst the NS extras are doing Break-dance moves in the background. I couldn't say if the acting was good or bad, the movie was simply to annoying to care about that.

Therefore I vote with the majority for a 1 out of 10.

I just saw the movie around 2 a.m. but it clearly kept me awake. Not only does this masterpiece a good portrait of one of the most famous court-trials in the US but it delivers acting at its best. I've seen the movie in its original b/w version and the style was good. Rarely used were filler-shots and even were good, clear and served the rhythmic tempo of the movie in overall. Acting was so good on both sides of the court that you really could get enraged at those who wanted to ban Darwin from school-teaching because it would defy god itself. Makes me wonder why they can't do such movies anymore in Hollywood. Maybe the new Werner Herzog flick 'invincible' can deliver...

As usual for an asian movie the cinematography is superb, but that's not all. Teenie idol's Takeshi Kaneshiro's acting is subtle and very good. The movie draws a fine picture of the turmoil in underground Tokyo Shinjuku where the Chinese and Korean control the market. Violence is not overexaggerated as asian movies sometimes tend to and the soundtrack is more thematically linked as usual in this kind of movies.

All in all a fine movie worth watching.

i live in germany and go to an english sneak preview once a week. When I saw the sign telling me that that weeks movie was in german I was in a kind of shock. But after seeing Lola rennt I was fascinated. A completely new idea which was then quickly adopted in the mediocre Sliding Doors starring Gwyneth Paltrow.

The movie is fast and furious like a good roller coaster ride but unfortunately some people can't enjoy a movie for what it is...Entertainment. Who cares about plot, story continuity and the rest when he's laughing himself to death watching Scary movie?????

so just...enjoy it