Change Your Image
waldwuffel-1
Reviews
Django Unchained (2012)
Well cast and executed Tarantino movie with little innovation
It's a good movie, simple as that, and it definitely ranks up there with Tarantino's best works, and there is not much point in delving too deep into the plot, since it's both predictable and conventional in any aspect imaginable. And that's one of my biggest complaints with this movie. Sure, if you watch a Tarantino flick, you don't exactly expect a brilliant story per se, but rather want to see how it is told with over the top scenes and larger than life characters, and in this regard, the movie delivers. He gave the usual buddy-theme and "damsel in distress"-theme an interesting twist with the whole slavery and bounty-hunting affair, but overall, it's nothing you haven't seen before. While Christoph Waltz does an outstanding job in portraying the German dentist-turned-bountyhunter Dr. King Schulz as a likable, prosaic and delightfully uninvolved anti-hero - after all, his job is killing people -, you can't help but feel he essentially just reprises his role from Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds", only as a "good guy" this time. There is nothing wrong with that, as it worked favourably both for Waltz and the movie itself, but innovative, this is not. DiCaprio, as well, is just deliciously unlikable as the movie's antagonist, and he's about the only refreshing part in it, as you rarely see him performing bad guys. Alas, I was a little disappointed in the role of Django. Not Foxx's performance, but the whole character seems shallow and you can't help but feel it could have been played equally well by any African-American actor. Not saying Foxx didn't give Django his own defining touches, but he just didn't have much to work with. In conclusion, the movie is a 9 out of 10. I substract one point for the usual Tarantinoism when it comes to violence. I know that it is his trademark, and I'm fine with the way he just completely overuses blood and gore during fire-fights, because there, it at least serves a purpose of enhancing the brutality of it, even though I don't like it. What I truly detest is when it's just there for shocks and shows, as it doesn't serve any other purpose other than being offensive (I'm referring to the eye-gouging scene during the Mandingo-fight) and disgusting, and for that, I have very little understanding. This and the reason that Tarantino himself hat a small cameo that was acted out plain HORRIBLE - seriously, if you can't do a southern accent, don't try to fake it - cost this movie a whole point, leaving it at a still good 8/10.
Adam (2009)
A classic love story with a twist, and an authentic portrayal of AS
First things first: I belong to the kind of reviewers that does have Asperger's Syndrome, and hence, my review will take the portrayal of this condition heavily into account.
I will not bother going into detail much about the plot, because frankly, there is not much to talk about, it is a very generic love story that is cast, shot and executed like any other of those hundreds of romantic comedy flicks out there. It is neither extraordinarily bad or good in that regard, and it works quite well in this extent. Now, the twist of the story is that Adam, the male protagonist, has Asperger's Syndrome, a condition that puts him on the autistic spectrum: He is trapped in a world that needs to be in order, predictable and isolated for him to understand it. He cannot relate to other people because he cannot understand their feelings or what they are thinking, he has trouble interpreting indirect commands and figures of speech, and while he is extraordinarily brilliant in his field of interest, engineering and cosmology, these are the only things that matter to him, and he assumes everyone else is as into them as he is. Then Beth moves into an apartment in his house, and turns his world upside down because she shows interest in this awkward guy she just finds cute at first, but manages to see beyond his quirks and oddities to see that there is in fact a kind, honest, loyal and incredibly caring and sweet man that has been dropped into a world he will never fully understand. The rest unfolds in a predictable way, and I won't go mentioning the subplot concerning Beth's father, as it is pretty much just a hook for the main plot to unfold. Where the movie shines is in Hugh Dancy's incredibly authentic performance of an "Aspie" as we like to get called, and it is clear from the very beginning that the actor put a great deal of effort into finding out what the condition defines. I'd like to stress that he is definitely on the far end of the spectrum, meaning that his Asperger's is rather severe. What was truly astonishing is that fact that the film indeed manages to be funny without making fun of the protagonist or the condition itself. We laugh with Beth when she realizes that Adams incredibly inappropriate behaviour does not stem from rudeness or selfishness, but true lack of understanding, and we smile when we see Adam does yet another thing that is socially not accepted in his effort to blend in and be a good partner for Beth. It also gave me a really painful feeling in my heart, because I know many, many of the situations Adam found himself stranded in, and he just did not know how to deal with them. People with Asperger's Syndrome or HFA (High Functioning Autism) are more or less very tragic figures: We are not like those helpless autistics that truly live in another world and are sometimes capable of other amazing feats in return - like Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man -, we are connected enough to still live in the same society, but we have a very hard time understanding the unwritten rules. To us, other people are chaotic, unpredictable and scary, and we have the feeling that we live in a world where we do not belong, a world not made for us and that is changing too rapidly that in our struggle to keep up, we stumble, we fall and we bump into things and people. We come over as self absorbed, preoccupied oddballs, when really all we want is understanding. Our increased longing for solitude and quiet makes bonding with other humans an active task rather than something that comes naturally, something we have to constantly work on. We want to be alone, but we still want company somehow. We have the same feelings and needs ans anyone else, but being unable to express them makes it hard to be understood - and almost impossible to have your wishes fulfill when you care for someone, love them and want to be near them, and yet cannot express your feelings and give your partner the love he wants. I am getting of track, but this movie has touched me, because not only did it portrait Asperger's Syndrome in a dignified and authentic manner, it also showed me what kind of stress it puts on the people we care about - and it is a heavy burden to carry indeed to know that you are making the life of your loved ones so incredibly hard at times.
God Bless America (2011)
Possibly one of the most important movies of this generation - and funny as heck!
When I first heard about this movie I thought: Oh well, yet another take on a reason to present us with senseless killing and justifying it by pseudo-philosophical means, telling us all how rotten and decadent we are. While this film does take this approach, it does so with a blast. In its message and how it is delivered, the movie is blunt and straightforward: Frank has an an inoperable cancer, and having lost his wife, his daughter, his job and his health, why not put an end to all of it. He seems to be a misfit in a society full of shallow people that enjoy picking on the weak, making fun of them and gloat over the rich, the beautiful and those with poor anger management. The country is ruled by media that make their money by catering to the people's fears and, worst of all, creating them in the first place. The movie's antagonists have very obvious real-life counterparts (American Idol, The Jersey Shore, the tea party movement). When Frank is ready to pull the trigger, he figures: Why me? Why not them? And of he goes on his killing spree to rid the world of the wretched. Surprisingly, the movie deals comparetively little with his deadly exploits, having not as many killing scenes as one might expect, and this is where the movie's delicate subtleties start. Frank is not politically motivated. He is just overly shocked about how incredbly rude and self-centered people have become. People all around him make fun of a disabled person on TV, and when he sends his co-worker flowers to her home because she had a bad day, he gets fired because his company has a zero-tolerance-policy towards "harassment". He does not want to change the world, he does not fight for civil rights. In essence, he and his killing is just the result of people not caring anymore, and the movie makes it almost seem logical. You cannot help but have all the sympathy for him and his sidekick, Roxy, who tags along to join the fun, and she, as well, is a metaphor for the upcoming generation, for their values and how they see the world. Amongst her peers, she doesn't belong as well, although it s never clear if it is by choice or by accident. But in a world where even teenagers are about nothing more than having a fancy car, many friends and being pretty, do you even have a choice? Is it a matter of "either-or": Either you belong to the cool kids, or you are a loser? There seems to be nothing more in between. While the end is predictable, the viewer cannot help but have mixed feelings when the credits rolled. You sympathized with the protagonists, and the shameless and direct display of violence is all the more satisfying, but in the end, doesn't that make you one of the gazers, one of the millions of people that enjoy sex, violence, and profanities? After all, who of us can claim to not have watched at least one of those shows that are, essentially, about nothing more than feeling ashamed for other people, and take delight in their lack of talent and self-awareness? "God Bless America" is what you call a clever movie. The acting is, like everything else, smart and straightforward, and both Joel Murray and Tara Barr stay true to their respective characters all the time. The way Murray expresses his disgust so brilliantly that you just have to feel with him. Barr's performance is a little less refined, but it fits her and she does a convincing job of delivering Roxy's motivation of tagging along: She just does not belong, and is sick of the meaningless and boring life, the shalowness of her generation, and the prospect of living in a world in decline. Frank says something about how today's "reality" shows are nothing more than a modern colliseum, a sign that our western society has reached the peak of its decadency. I think it is fitting. And it is a scary thought.
ParaNorman (2012)
A great movie that shows that animated does not equal suitable for kids
You should not go into this movie expecting a movie along the lines of Coraline, another stop-motion animated feature by Laika. While it does share the spooky, creepy tone of its predecessor, it is completely different in both tone and pacing. Alas, it is similar in structure and narration, and it can be viewed as a more light-hearted spiritual successor to Coraline. Coraline was a great feature - and is amongst my favorite movies of all time -, but it has a much slower pace, fewer characters and a stronger focus on Coraline. Paranorman is about a young teen named Norman, who is a social outcast because he as the ability to see and speak to ghosts, of which there are plenty in his small town which is heavily inspired by Salem, MA and its rich tradition about the famous witch trials that took place there in the late 17th century. Of course, nobody believes him, neither his parents, nor his shallow cheerleader sister Courtney, and it makes him a well suited target for the school bully Alvin. As it turns out, this ability runs in his family, as his equally awkward uncle informs him, and for a good reason: Every year, this man goes to the witch's grave and reads her a story to put her back to sleep, so the curse she put on the people who sentenced her to death don't rise from their grave. Without wanting to spoil the story too far, of course, Norman has to face his fate and go up agains the witch... and the townspeople, who are scared by the sudden presence of the undead. Fear is a main plot element in this movie, but not in the sense that this movie is scary. At least not for adults. The movie is cheerfully spooky, much like you would feel on a Halloween-party. What I really liked about the movie is its pacing: It is a fast past movie that does not waste time on unimportant details, but takes its time when appropriate, especially in character development. The roles could not be more stereotypical when it comes to horror movies, but you will soon come to realize that, while it cannot be considered an exploitation or a mockery, it plays with those clichés and when you think you have the plot figured out, they throw you a curve ball and lead it into a different direction, without giving you the feeling they pull things out of a hat. It pays tribute to classic horror scenarios, A and B movies (Halloween being one of the most prominent), but finds its own way and place in this genre. It is not a horror movie. It is not really a comedy, even though you'll have plenty to laugh about. Action is used in small doses, so you still have to - and can! - pay attention to the story and the characters. As for the technical part, I do think this movie sets new standards for stop motion pictures, as Coraline did before. The animation is much, much smoother than in Coraline. What really takes the prize is the facial animation. Not only for stop motion standards, but for animation standards in general, the characters' expressions are so well detailed and unique that I can only imagine what a piece of work it must have been to animate it. Especially since there is a huge amount of different characters involved, and a lot more scenes involving many at the same time. As a final note, I would like to add that, like Coraline, it is not a movie suitable for little children. Like Coraline, the movie has a darker tone, that, even when considering the lighter, more comedic approach, is very suitable to scare children and giving them nightmares. There is zombies, ghosts, witches, dark forests and loads of creepy sounds. Even more so, children will have trouble following the plot, and will of course not be able to get all the nods towards classic horror movies. If you are a parent, think twice before taking your children to see this movie. Not because it is bad, but it might be too much for your kids. Again, people need to see animated movies of all kind as an art form that is not necessarily geared towards a young audience, and this movie is a prime example that animated does not equal suitable for kids.
9/10
Brave (2012)
By far not Pixar's best, but neither their worst
Pixar movies still are a league of their own, even after their first "bad" movie that was Cars 2, but with Brave, they still have not recovered to their former glory. The movie is solid, and when it comes to the technical part, there are few companies that can even remotely mess with Pixar. Each of their movies shows a remarkable leap in technology, and Brave is no exception. Even though the movie's animation gimmik falls a bit on the sort side (comparing it to say, Finding Nemo's underwater theme and "Up"'s Balloons), it is astonishing non the less: Meredith's hair is incredibly detailed and looks both real and comically overdrawn at the same time. The character's expressions are also a new standard for Pixar movies, and are only topped to this day by Tintin. What made this movie not play in their top tier is the fact that the story and the execution are a little bit on the shallow side. You could say: Disney-esque. The film's mother-daughter conflict (as well as the one tradition vs. freedom) are just a little too blunt and direct, and are without much metaphor or a second level of thought, predictable both in development and execution. The movie loses a lot of momentum after Meridith's mother has turned into a bear, and where the movie fails absolutely and miserably is in the development of the bad guy, because there is really none. In the first quarter, it is established that there used to be one of four brothers who went to be the bad guy, and the moment the queen is turned into a bear, it is clear that the bear we see in the beginning that eats the king's leg is that brother. Almost no development went into that character, his motivations or his interactions and relations with the other characters, other than Meredith's father hating him and being out for revenge. The film would have done better without him, but it seems they felt it was too unconventional to not have an antagonist. And this is the movies main problem: not only for a Pixar movie, but for a movie in general, it is too conventional. This is not really saved by the fact that the protagonist is female, as, sadly, Meredith is a rather replacable character. Other than her wild, curly red hair, she does not bring much into the game of making her stand out of the ocean of all other Disney princesses. As a side-note: Even the witch is extraordinarily clichée - and one of the most clichée characters I have seen in a whole while - with a broomstick, comically disfigured, humpy appearance and even a ravenbird - one that talks, no less - as a pet. All this ranting may make it sound like I did not like the movie. Like I said, I did, and very much so. It was a very good movie. One of the reasons I get so worked up about the issues I mentioned is the fact that that movie had a lot more potential, and it is unusual for Pixar to be so undaring and conventional. Even Cars 2, while being not a good movie, was daring enough in many aspects as to give it a different feel to it than the first Cars. I simply fear that Disney's influence on Pixar might become too firm, and that one day we will just have them bring out direct to video sequels of all their establisehd IP. Alas, this is not the case yet, and this being both their first historical piece as well as the first movie with a female protagonist, I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have not figured out the details yet on how to handle this new material. After all, the ending is open enough to allow for a sequel, which we will undoubtedly see some day. When talking in Pixar standards: 6/10 when talking regular standards (which is my rating here on IMDb) 8/10
The Karate Kid (2010)
Acceptable movie that does not hold up to its original
First things first: I have to admit that I am a huge fan of the original Karate Kid, but I'll try and not be biased by that.
Short review: The movie is acceptable, with some nice scenes and locations, but the acting is poor and the characters are both full of clichés and underdeveloped.
Long review: After seeing this movie in cinema, my first impression was this: Spoiled kid talked his father to get him trained in Kung Fu by Jackie Chan, then made a movie out of it. Jaden Smith just didn't do it for me. His character is just a compilation of afro-American cliché (come on, cornrows? really?), and the movie just failed to develop his character like the original did with Ralph Macchio's. His transformation just didn't seem to be too big, as he never seemed to lack confidence to begin with, and always had that distinct taint of "gangsta"-attitude (for chrisakes, open your frigging eyes. Looking like you were staring into the sun all the time does NOT make you look cool, just ridiculous). As for Jackie Chan, he was just this: Jackie Chan. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE Jackie Chan, his action scenes are always superb, and he has got the most contagious smile ever, but there is a reason to it why you don't see him in many serious roles: He is not a good actor when it comes to that. "Mr. Han" is just flat, and there are light years between his performance and that of Noriyuki Morita in the original, as the latter actually had more than two facial expressions. Now, which style of mentor you prefer is personal taste, and whether you like your fighting sequences flashy or more down to earth, but in a movie where the lead supposedly learns "real kung fu", fighting scenes like those performed by Chan or the final tournament just feel like what they are: staged, choreographed movie scenes. Especially the final bout between Dre and the "bad guy" (who is, again, as subtle as a jackhammer, and has "villain" written all over him the moment you see him), where you can plainly see that Dre is not performing his finishing move without mechanical help, it boils down to what I mentioned before: Jaden wants to look like a cool Kung Fu fighter, and daddy helps him.
As a last note, I really like to point out that I don't wanna see a "love story" between two characters who are supposed to be 12 years of age (and as an interesting side-note: I was perfectly aware that Wenwen Han, the female lead, was much older than Jaden Smith when I saw the movie, and I find that not only offensive but truly disgusting to have a 14 to 15 year old girl perform "love scenes" with a 12 year old kid).
The movie gets 4 out of 10 from me, with a -1 star penalty for being called "The Karate Kid". I am aware that Jaden is mockingly called "Karate Kid", but essentially, this boils down to: You learned Karate, which sucks, now you have to learn a "real" martial art. And as a practitioner of both Karate and Chinese martial arts (Wing Tsun), I find this whole "my martial art is better than yours" attitude in general both absurd and ridiculous.
Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)
A movie with a serious Chevy Chase - I liked it
I've seen this movie a couple of times, and I like to watch it ever since I saw it the first time when its on TV. The plot is moderately original, the settings are good, and on top of all, we see great acting from all three leads: Sam Neill, Daryl Hannah and - to my surprise - Chevy Chase. My main memories about him the time I saw the movie for the first time was him sitting behind the wheel of an estate car, playing is undoubtedly most famous Clark Griswold character, which I really do not like. The more astonishing that it just takes a darker setting, some good co-actors, and the fact that he is visible only about half the time of the movie, and there you go, some fantastic Chevy Chase acting over there. He played his character very authentic, although maybe a little too cool later on during the movie. Maybe this movie cannot hold up to more popular Hollywood movies of its time, but it is a quite decent story with good acting and some very nice ideas. 7 outta 10, with a +1 star understatement bonus.