Reviews

What the...? Is this really a marvel movie or a satire on marvel movies? They really threw everything into it. Some of the ideas are great but some of them are just terrible and nothing fits together.

There are some very funny moments and the cast is great. But on the other side the dramatic backstory why Cpt. Marvel is called "Annihilator" is just wasted completely. There could have been some serious character developement but instead of using that fatal mistake of her for pushing the story ahead, we have to watch 10 minutes of Brie Larson starring in a cheesy musical. And that really was one of my worst movie experiences ever.

Hey, you there at Disney: Release Brie Larson from the devilish contract that she will be able to play in good movies again. Such a waste of talent!!!

Imaging Mel Brooks trying to do a Marvel movie with the MAD-TV crew in Disneyland. Sounds funny, but it´s not. The jokes are cheesy, Thor is nothing but a clown, the CGI seems to be made in a lollypop shop, the characters are superflat.

The basic story is good but the script is ruined by compulsive and ridiculous wisecracking. Christian Bale does a terrific job as Gorr - the only character with some depth - but he seems to be lost in the wrong movie.

And finally they just really drop a brick: to defeat Gorr Thor convinces the kipdnapped kids how great it is to be child soldiers. This is just so disgusting and off limits - a cinematic atrocity.

I really enjoyed the MCU so far, some movies were actually outstanding, but if this is the kind of movie we have to expect under the guidance of Disney in the future, I´m out.

Groce!

This is a movie about a girl that is obviously mentally disturbed in a manner that made it impossible for me to relate to her. Most of the scenes seem to be forced by the author and don´t give you the feeling of watching a real chain of events, but something an author made up, especially the relation between the Charlotte and her rival-poet Sylvie.

Charlottes life is a mess and it stays a mess. I waited for some revelation, for some transformation of Charlottes character, for some insight that she reveals in the ONE great poem she wants to right, but it doesn´t happen. (something like: "you can buy this, you can buy that, but your body will rott , anyway." Insights on the intellectual level of a 15 year old.) Even killing the wife of her lover by accident does not effect her. In the end she gets away with everything and stays the same disturbed person, you cannot relate to.

What does the film teach me? 1. Berlin is a rough city full of synthetic drugs (which is right). 2. There are a lot of mentally damaged people who need treatment. Nothing new. 3. There are a lot of mediocre writers, directors and actors who should do better.

This movie is funny, sexy, has good acting and even a nice cinematography. And it is moving more and more into daring territory and challenges conservative sexual morality. But just to a certain extent.

After Audra and Noel finally let their pretences and reservations drop and have a threesome with freeminded Holly the real nature of Audra and Hollys relationship is revealed: they had a serious lesbian relationship over two years in college. And they are still in love, allthough Audra loves Noel as well. Everything seems to point out to a possible realy free minded polyamourous relationship of the three, but at this point the heterosexual Noel is threatened and shuts the door to this possible future. So does the writer/director.

In the end the whole "menage a trois" is reduced to a sexual fantasy coming true to spice up the conservative heterosexual marriage. The bisexuality of Audra is reduced to some teenage folly. So finally this movie, allthough it seemed to be very promising, returns to the male dominated norm, and its fear to be downsized by female emotional and sexual potential, instead of using this potential to step into a more broad minded state of consciousness and relationship - like executed in the fine movies "Kiss me again" or "Prof. Marston and the Wonderwoman".

But still, it is funny and sexy and maybe makes some people think a little about their sexual and social boundaries.

After watching the terrible "Dark Phoenix" this movie was really a relief. Yes, it is very much "B", but it was made by people, who really thought about the concept of superheroes and the nature of man.

Be honest: If you had superpowers, would you risk your life and help others... for nothing? Rather not. So here we have a normal Joe, doing what normal Joes do: thinking of the bills to pay and of a full stomach. And there is his best friend, who dreams of being an selfless, altruistic hero, fighting evil just for the glory of it, but who is just not able to do so, and turns into an envious, treacherous opponent.

Besides the wonderful and ridiculous "superpower" of throwing spaghetti, the central conflicts are relevant and well thought through. This is not the Attack of the Killer Tomatos Part 2 or just some other funny, crappy, cheap flick. This is a funny, crappy, cheap flick with a well written script that transports some essential ideas.

Jennifer Lawrence will be ashamed to be associated with this movie and the only really convincing thing in the movie is her facial expression when she dies - very early, very convincing. The rest of the movie is just terrible.

Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is the worst choice ever made. The new Nightcrawler is not convincing either. But also the rest of the cast seems not to be able to fill the characters with live. They try - but fail again and again.

The script is poor as well. The writers and the director obviously don't understand their characters and the "laws" of superpowers. Not to speak about the highlly illogic things the characters sometimes do. One of Magnetos biggest scenes, is wrecking a military helicopter. Wow! Really? A helicopter? US Army? Amazing! Never seen anything like it before!

In another scene, in the middle of a totally confusing fight, he raises a subway train from below the ground. Why? Nobody knows. He walks into a house, the train follows him into the hall and stops there... not very impressive... and absolutely pointless.

Evil aliens jump onto the roof a train - and are wiped off it in a fight... and are again on the roof, and are wiped away... but are still... or again on the roof and are wiped off ... no! still there they are on the roof... and so one....

And the CGIs seem to be made by students. Poor.

Some of the X-Men-movies belong to the best superhero movies ever made. They had strong conflicts, strong characters, were written, acted, directed and edited perfectly. This one has nothing of it and is surely one of the worst superhero movies ever made.

So sad.

The original idea of Star Trek was as simple as innovative:

1. A spacecraft were you feel at home 2. A crew that sticks together like siblings, even if they have their little conflicts 3. Challenges that are solved by creativity 4. Man's main motivation is not personal wealth and power but developing his wisdom and humanness 5. Conflicts can be solved best by learning to understand the antagonist; the aim is always peaceful cooperation. 6. The crew is confronted with alien things no man has ever seen.

And what does "Star Trek: Discovery" do?

1. A spacecraft with a bleak, uncomfortable atmosphere (or no atmosphere at all?) 2. A crew that is constantly distrustful, everyone seems to hate or fear everyone else. 3. Challenges are solved mainly by deception or violence 4. Man's main motivation is to achieve personal success or cope with a repressive hierarchy. 5. Conflicts can be solved by... er... winning a war? 6. The crew is confronted with all the old crap. Long known enemies, war, intrigues etc.pp.

How on earth can you start a new Star Trek series with Sarek (a pacifist from Vulcan!) giving the advice to attack first and as hard as possible to prevent a war? Then let the characters fail, let the war happen and state that there is no alternative to this war?

Haven't we got enough of that stuff? What is with the vision that made Star Trek once unique? There are still a few elements carrying the original spirit, but compared to the central theme which is WAR they are just minor matters and commonplace.

When you look at it just as some new SF-series and feel comfortable with war scenarios it's okay, but as Star Trek it is a complete letdown.

This movie somehow has the look of a conservative Hallmark-TV-production so you don't expect anything interesting, but out of a sudden it reveals a lot about the idiocy of the gun-crazed male.

Some reviews blame this movie to be feminist anti-gun propaganda, and anti-gun propaganda it is! But it does not pretend to be something else like so many of the American movies that are military propaganda, pro-gun propaganda, surveillance society propaganda, genetic engineering propaganda etc.pp.

And is it feminist? Well, if you brain still dwells somewhere in the 18th century, you might think so. If you were born in the 20th century or later than this movie should just represent the status quo! The only sad thing about it is that in reality the deprivation of sex in such a conservative setting would probably end up in violence and rape.

In the last years most SF-movies just deal with dystopies, one darker than the other. If you grew up with Buck Rogers and Star Trek and like SF-worlds that offer an alternative way of living or at least some perspective, you will like this one - until it finally turns into crap. The plot is great, the acting is fine, there are a lot of good ideas in it, a lot of good visual effects (a swimming pool during a failure of artificial gravity...) and there is even an essential ethical issue in it - actually the moments when SF really unfolds its potential.

But finally it turns into one of those completely implausible action flicks.

SPOILERS: The idea that the two main characters (passengers!) are able to save the gigantic vessel is somehow far fetched in the first instance, but it could have been written in a way that would have made it plausible. If there would have been just some minor, little damage, some insignificant computer error the story would have been working. And it would have been more SF! It would have been a comment on the naiveté of men, to put their lives in the hand of machines.

But, no, it has to be the impact of a meteorite! And an overload of the fusion reactor! Holes in the shell plates of the ship! And completely destroyed computer panels! And everything has to collapse right in the moment were they discover the damage! So they (a writer and a mechanic!) repair the computer within several minutes (!!!) And they know how to cool down the reactor (!!!) Find a little hatch on the outside of the gigantic ship within a few minutes and know how to open it (!!!) Then the guy is able to survive the blow-out of a fusion reactor, shielding himself with a small door (!!!) He is not even catapulted out into the vast empty space but is levitating just within reach around the ship with a cracked helmet (!!!) and she is able to get in to the space-suit so fast that she still can save him within time. Then they live happily ever after. In a paradise garden they planted on the spacecraft. With gigantic trees that had just 89 years to grow. And birds (wtf?!). Where does this bird in the last scene come from? Did it grew on a tree?

Conclusion: A fine SF-movie in the first half ruined by stupid blockbuster standards in the second. What a waste of money and talent.

This is a movie made for young people with all the ingredients they need: pop music, love story, a little family trouble and school environment with all its highs and lows. And for sure: a strong reference to recent fashion. So there is not much to say about the whole plot. It is simple and told straight forward. No surprises, no twists.

Besides that the version of the 80ies given by the director is somehow distorted. There are a lot of errors in historical facts and fashion: the two brothers talk about MTV, but the story takes place in 1985 and MTV Europe was founded in 1987. And by that time it could only be received via cable which was very seldom, especially in poor Ireland. In one scene the protagonist tries to be a Robert Smith imposer and wears a donkey jacket. But this kind of jackets were usually worn by skinheads in the 80ies.

But first an foremost the movie misses the spirit and feeling of the 80ies. Because the feeling of the film is just pure postmodern present age. The music played is mainly pop music the kids were listening to. But the old brother of the protagonist, some weird and misplaced 90ies slacker, is giving all those kiddy-pop-records to his younger brother as if they were long kept treasures. It would be more likely that this guy either would have listened to Birthday Party, Billy Bragg, Wire or some other post-punk underground stuff or still to music from "his" time, the late 70ies.

The protagonist changes his design and musical interest like his underwear. But the 80ies were characterized by commitment, credibility and integrity. You chose once if you are mainstream or subculture and than you stuck to it. If you chose to be punk you'd never switched to be new-romantic on the next day. But that is exactly what the characters in the movie do. And it is a way of thinking that perfectly reflects pop cultural habits nowadays that derive mainly out of ignorance.

I played in my first band in 1985 and it definitely felt different - the time, the music, just everything. So if you had your share of the 80ies, forget about this movie. If you are 15 and don't give a damn, enjoy it. But don't expect to learn anything real about the 80ies.

Because it is just a fairy tale with some poorly placed accessories.

This is not a movie about dating, it is not a movie about being a single and it is surely not a romantic comedy. Wtf? Well, it is all that, but still something completely different that most critics and reviewers don't seem to get. It is about a young man who tries to act like a "mensch" and find love, while his surrounding wants to fill him up with the typical American clichés about sex, relationship and live in general.

We see him confronted with friends reducing the relationship between man and women to business-school-babble or baseball, who talk him into functionalizing sex, he is confronted with racists and cynical CEO's who have real fun dismissing their employees. When he cautiously mentions that some of those people are good at their work and have kids, they explain to him that being an asshole is the way to make money in this society and he can leave as well. (And for the first time in an American movie I saw normal (!!!) unemployed people that are not depicted as alcoholics, drug addicts or other completely miserable and depressed drop-outs!) The movies shows that stop playing the game is actually an option!

And then there is the TV that invades his daydreams and tries to explain the world - but it is just as ridiculous as the two politicians in a TV debate that is shown over and over. Even in the end, after giving an irritating mediocre speech about love, he adds "---I think this is what Oprah said."

For me this is a movie that uses the rom com-stereotypes (in a skillfull and funny way) to tell a story about how to keep your brain and authenticity together in an American mainstream-version of reality.

Beyond that: The camera work is great, the acting of Aaron Tveit is fantastic and his depicted character is absolutely believable and lovable, the shrink of Charlie is one of the most memorable characters in movie of all times, the surreal distortions are great.

Maybe you have to be European to have the necessary distance - whatsoever: watch this movie, forget everything you expect of rom coms! This is something else!

This movie is one of those to slowly discover. It looks some kind of cheap from the beginning and it appears to have no precise direction at first, but as the story evolves and the relationships entangle it is getting better and better.

The psychology of the plot is absolutely believable and the actors are led so sensitively and delicately by the director that their performance has some really outstanding moments. The movie is really getting strong when it defies the conventions of the typical American movie-morality. A threesome relationship is depicted as something that does not infest relationships per se, but as a possible way of living and loving, if those who are involved are sincere and wholehearted. The way you love does not matter as long as you do it without treason and lies.

It starts with the burning of the American flag in a class at university as an example of freedom of opinion, and it ends with a decision to live in a way that is rejected as scandalous by the majority. And in between it tells a story about the risks and fears of establishing your personal utopia. It's daring and provoking. And it is sexy. too...

If you cannot cope with those topics, return to your suppressed and/or guilt ridden sexual fantasies. If you are open minded and believe in the capability of human emotions to transcend rigid social rules, this one is for you!

Where are the good times gone? The X-Men used to be the best marvel-merchandise. OK, the third movie was crap. And there were some flaws in some of the other movies, but still were they good enough to hope for more. In vain. X-Men: Apocalypse has some severe flaws. The make up, especially of the villain, looked ridiculous. The casting of the antagonist was also bad. He was just one more of those cynical, smirking megalomaniacs. His alter ego in the first scene had a far stronger and more evil presence. The new Jean Grey is just horrible. And what became of the real cynical Magneto? He is just a nice guy who had to suffer and chose the wrong side - just for a short while. But one of the main problems: the super-powers are completely out of balance. Magneto is able to alter the magnetic field of the entire earth, Apocalypse is able to destroy and rebuilt a city within seconds, Quicksilver is so fast that he could cope with everyone at once... and the Beast? And Wolverine? Well, they can jump around a little bit and are somehow faster than ordinary man and... that's it. And that does not work for me. Ah, nearly forgot something really stupid: Xavier enters the mind of Apocalypse to fight him with his psychic powers. How? His psychic-self punches Apocalypse's psychic-self into the face. Subtle and brainy, isn't it?

This film started with some whispered voice-over, continued with mumbled voice-over and never stopped with mumbling and whispering... There where some beautiful shots of landscape. And for sure Q'orianka Kilcher is totally sweet, but all this is drowned in mumbling, whispering and waggonloads of chliché.

You have to listen to sentences like "Who is she?" or "Who is he?" about 12.000 times because the actors are not speaking but continuously thinking trite bullshit.

The native Americans are called (very p.c.!) naturals, not savages, like the first settlers probably would have done, and they are depicted as real childlike and naive "noble savages".

Pocahontas is so deeply natural, constantly talking to her mother (nature!), so completely in balance with her environment that you get sick of it. And she is so holy and pure that she purifies the soul of every men falling in love with her.

And civilization is completely evil and destructive. John Smith is turned into a martyr because he realizes that he is responsible for the corruption of the pure and innocent soul of America, instead of realizing that he just behaves like a stupid asshole. But the script turns his letting-her-down into a saving-her-from-evil. Yak!

The music is terrible. It does not fit the time, the scenes or whatsoever.

There are dozens of highly illogical scenes that just do break the continuity. Once Pocahontas is at the coast, than she is hundreds of miles upstream, in one scene the settlers and Indians are killing each other, in the next they are just staring at each other with no visible victims of the former battle, in one scene the Indians take Georgetown, burn it to the ground and kill the inhabitants, in den next the Indians are again outside the palisades, the people of Georgetown are still alive and are on the watch and so on...

And when Smith finally returns to England and visits Pocahontas, now called Rebecca, he still is dressed like coming straight out of the wilderness with greasy, filthy hair and ragged leather clothe...

Why 3 stars instead of 1? Just because of Q'orianka Kilcher and Christian Beale. And the fact that she finally turns down the really annoying Collin Farell who just looks like a beaten dog throughout more than 2 hours...

Wong Kar Wei once invented a visual style that has been revolutionary. That's quite some time ago. In The Grandmaster it seems to me like he quotes himself, repeats himself, tries to make every scene remarkable and symbolic. With the result that the movie drowns in baroque pictures which do not correspond with the storyline. The camera is moving all the time, always there is something between us an the actors... a curtain, a window, fog... whatsoever.

It is no martial arts film, although there is martial arts in it. But it is not a character driven movie as well, because there is to little narration, to little development.

I could not integrate the figure of Razor until I read some comments and explanations. And the wife of Ip Man, who seems to be so important in the beginning, just vanishes somehow from the story plot. So do his children. All in all: very disappointing! And so much weaker than the wonderful Ip Man-movies starring Donnie Yen.