A boy enjoying pictures of women in swimwear with his friends. A boy being devastated after having his mane cut off. A boy debating the necessity of Facebook with his high school girlfriend. In all honesty, Boyhood is a rather apt title for this film. But it could just as well hold the name of another picture currently running in cinemas: Life Itself. That simple yet profound thing is what lies at the core of Richard Linklater’s unique 12-year-spanning story and makes it relatable for everyone, regardless of sex, age group, descent, social status, or character. Linklater lets his audience live through the fun and the pain, the love and the misery, and the excitement and the disappointment of his protagonist Mason with yet another wonderful screenplay in his repertoire and an unspectacular but still extraordinary way of directing. Leaving the cinema, it’s hard to grasp one has just spent the better part of an evening in front of a screen, but at the same time, there’s also a feeling of having relived your own adolescence along with Mason.
By now, if you aren’t a three-year-old – in which case I would be puzzled to see you reading this –, you know what to bargain for when watching a Disney production: ravishing animations, a feel good story teaching morals, more or less fun for the whole family, but also a rather unoriginal script abounding with clichés. Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee’s Frozen preserves the modus operandi, but is one of the most exciting and entertaining features the film studio has forged in recent years nevertheless.
Despite swindling in its title – naming the film Death at a Funeral without anyone actually dying – Frank Oz’s black humour comedy is in fact quite an honest film, fusing realistic funereal incidents to a considerably less realistic whole and letting the audience experience it through the eyes of not all too clever, successful or likeable Joe Publics. However, Dean Craig’s script will not be the one winning the prize for the wittiest, most intelligent or most amusing script of the century. Or of the year. Or of the opening weekend. Yet the British writer demonstrates flair in creating just slightly exaggerated characters that feel exactly like someone you’ve met yourself at some time. A top-tier ensemble cast is assisting him, especially uproarious with the likes of Alan Tudyk and Peter Dinklage, the duo primarily responsible for the burial going awry. But as other flaws, such as the archetypal comedy dialogue, the clichéd ending, and the unneeded scatological “humour” remain unresolved, the acting can’t elevate Death at a Funeral to any more than average. With good characters and slapstick gags, there is some fun to be had, but you’ll need more if you aspire to shape a good film. Death at a Funeral opts against that and therefore doesn’t furnish more than the occasional laugh.
A Beautiful Mind is an outstanding cinematic achievement. On one hand, that is because of truly Oscar-worthy filmmaking in every possible aspect, but on the other, graver hand, this is due to it introducing a mass audience to mental disorders. As all but an expert on this topic, I'm in no position to assess whether the film is realistic and respectful to actual patients, but bringing people closer to the minds of schizophrenics and other mentally ill by making a star-studded Hollywood film out of their perspective is rating praise already. Ron Howard realized a great mixture of drama, romance, action, and humour with A Beautiful Mind, something many directors attempt to do nowadays, clearly resulting from the award-winning prospect it brings along, but only very few succeed in. Story-wise, the film is immensely entertaining, touching, and just as beautiful as its title suggests. Another major merit of the four-time Oscar winner is its lead actor Russell Crowe, going from heroic action star in Gladiator to socially awkward genius in just two years. Thus, A Beautiful Mind is a more than deserving Best Picture winner at the Oscars and a film worth watching more than once.
The Bling Ring is a film with an informative content and interesting to watch; the problem is just that it could've so easily been told in a short film. Almost every single scene that isn't a montage considerably exceeds its needed length, and as the dialogue strictly (bar Leslie Mann) consists out of teenagers' gossip and prattle and only is worth listening to, to find out that Emma Watson can sport a West Coast accent rather well, there's boredom arising quite frequently. Since pros for watching the film more than once are virtually non- existent and skipping it won't be regarded as a gap in cinematic education by anyone, The Bling Ring is Sofia Coppola's worst film.
With such a big-scale production, a plot less thin and predictable would’ve been desirable, especially due to the fact that you need more than just visuals to make a film rewatchable. But there is really no denying that Cuarón has accomplished a most impressive and breathtaking film with Gravity, that should at least scoop the technical trophies at the Academy Awards.
The vast majority of critics and (thus?) moviegoers reacted differently, but I actually consider American Hustle to be an effective argument against improvisation in films. Because, whereas I’m a great fan of it when it’s executed amusingly by talented stand-up comedians, unscripted babble can thoroughly blacken a film’s quality – and that’s exactly what happened with this one. Granted, it does have good-looking costumes and set design as well as fine cinematography and editing, and if you find joy in the over the top of over the top portrayal of characters– well, go ahead, watch it. I just think that most of the people claiming to like the film are being overtly pretentious and following critics’ opinions, since American Hustle is a surprisingly boring, annoyingly ridiculous, and not anywhere close to funny film.
Steve McQueen's second film is just as hard-edged and brutally honest as his outstanding debut Hunger and his phenomenal follow-up 12 Years a Slave, but in an entirely different way. In Shame, the British auteur explores a topic hardly ever discussed in the film industry, sexual addiction, and uses it as a means to create a brilliant character study with artistic visuals. With very few things actually happening, Shame surely feels the longest of all of Steve McQueen’s films and, just as with Hunger and 12 Years a Slave, it’s probably going to take me quite some time to watch it again. However, the film brings up a lot of interesting things to think about and is the most honest and dignified approach to the subject I could think of, thus making it something very worthy of checking out.
Having Steven Spielberg, the mastermind behind many of the films with the highest budget and the biggest scale in the last 40 years, direct an entirely dialogue-centred portrayal of Abraham Lincoln doesn’t seem like your first choice. However, it proved to be an excellent one, as Spielberg’s vogue attracted some of the most talented people currently in the business to his project, both in the acting and general filmmaking cast, and thereby obtained twelve much deserved Academy Award nominations. Lincoln is an excellent biographical film, informative due to the information it brings up about the real-life figures working as supporting characters in the film and entertaining with an immensely talented acting ensemble and an enthralling way of storytelling, even though we’re all familiar to the story.
Being unique is not always a positive attribute for a film, but with Apocalypse Now, Francis Ford Coppola’s devastating portrayal of the Vietnam War, it most certainly is. At least in my opinion however, the two-and-a-half-hour-long depiction of war’s atrocities is not that great when regarded simply as a film; it’s much more a work of art, drastically showcasing the futility of this notorious bloodshed, resulting in millions of casualties over its duration of almost 20 years. Apocalypse Now fuels hatred and incomprehension for these happenings in the audience and makes a major pacifistic statement through the metaphorical journey of one man. But apart from the stunning cinematography, the 1979 epic lacks some cinematic traits to make it a thoroughly thrilling and rewatchable experience and can thus not get a top rating from me when regarded as a film.
With The Silence of the Lambs, Jonathan Demme laid the foundation of all psychological thrillers to come after it and also accomplished a contestant for one of the best book adaptions in film history, as he transformed Thomas Harris’s entertaining and thrilling novel of the same name into a visionary, absorbing, and stereotype-defying motion picture that deservedly ranks among the prestigious trio of films to have won the Big Five categories at the Academy Awards. It’s one of the very few thrillers (not horror films, as asinine Hollywood likes to classify it) that improves with time, similarly to the Chianti Hannibal Lecter mentions in the essential The Silence of the Lambs quote, as it’s neither a whodunit nor a howcatchem, but rather a study of psychopaths’ and serial killers’ twisted states of mind.
Now when a bunch of celebrities meet up, dope themselves to mammoth highs, and then decide to have a whale of a time by making a fully ad-libbed film, who am I to bash them? It’s just that the yield of this frenzy cannot possible be enjoyed as long as the same jag isn’t reached by the audiences. Thus, if drugs aren’t your cup of tea, This Is the End won’t be either. Scatological humour, downright terrible special effects, unbearable cheesiness, and drugs and gore in superfluous abundance pile up to one of the hugest disappointments the film year 2013 has held for me.
It’s impossible to specifically point out the aspects of the plot I disliked in Deathly Hallows 2 while simultaneously keeping this review devoid of spoilers, although I can say that they mostly concern the deaths of major characters and the newest dei ex machina that J.K. Rowling and Steve Kloves got up their sleeves. Not all of them were grave though and in some cases, it’s merely the poor adaption of the source material that causes confusion or illogicality. Either way, it impairs what is actually an appropriate denouement to this outstanding huge story and makes the top rating the film’s best moments would definitely rate a no-go. It's far from being a perfect film and that doesn’t change with a handful of unforgettable scenes. Nevertheless, I reckon it to be a very worthy finale for the franchise and, as with the other seven, the flaws just can’t prevent me from rewatching it over and over again.
The film may be too complex to grasp the first time watching it and also doesn't exactly spare clichés and silly exposition conversations, yet is still a rich and multiply-layered film that succeeds in including all the necessary genres and making it seem genuine. All of this is due to a top-notch crew and a huge gathering of immensely talented British actors, this time expanded by Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifans above others. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 is intense, moving, and highly entertaining and serves as a perfect set-up for the finale of this fantastic franchise.
Voldemort is back. That was the awesome cliffhanger Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ended on and story-wise, there were loads of possibilities for the follow-up in the series. However, Order of the Phoenix does not do what one may hope for and zeroes in on its protagonist’s puberty. Since this is a franchise accompanying kids through their full adolescence, it’s only reasonable for writer Michael Goldenberg to give weight to this, I guess, but that didn’t stop me from being quite disenchanted while watching the film. In my opinion, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is not only the second-shortest, but also the second-worst film of the eight and the transition between teenage problems and the real peril emanating from Voldemort’s return just isn’t accomplished very well.
Llewyn Davis, a loose take on the folk singer Dave Van Volk, will, in hindsight, not be remembered as one of the Coen brothers’ most interesting characters and neither will the movie, in which he is the eponymous protagonist. However, Inside Llewyn Davis is still another great picture by the inseparable duo that can deservedly look forward to a couple of Oscar nominations in January. Whether it’s the trademark cynical writing, the excellent acting throughout the cast, the bleak yet beautiful cinematography (even though it’s not Coen regular Roger Deakins this time around, but Amélie’s Bruno Delbonnel), or the perfectly done editing (reaching its pinnacle in a sort of match-cut between a man and a cat walking) this semi-musical is done flawlessly and should be a feast for connoisseurs of quality movies. Yet I can’t exclude the fact that the 105 minutes feels like a lot more than that and that the full-length folk performances popping up every now and then only increase this. That’s not an all-too-strong counterargument though, as the sheer fact that Ethan and Joel Coen succeeded in making a so heavily down-to-earth and unspectacular story into a movie that I will definitely watch some time again is enough for praise. The protagonist, as it turns out, is probably the most relatable character in the year of 2013 and seeing him perpetually fail in his attempts at becoming able to really live from his hobby gets all the more harrowing to watch through that. Inside Llewyn Davis is the perfect dramedy and additionally a lovely experience for fellow cat-lovers, as the tubby with the aptonym Ulysses gets more screen time to be cute than all the supporting actors. That again shows that it’s all about Llewyn and his never-ending cycle of failing, which makes the movie, despite being a step back in humour and inventiveness, a Coen number one: in the category of those of their works one can easily spend an hour thinking about.
After a less than passable second film, the Harry Potter series got back to greatness as Alfonso Cuarón took place in the director’s chair for Prisoner of Azkaban and gave Hogwarts a whole new style I very much enjoyed. Not all gone is the ludicrousness of the second film and book with some scenes like the bloating Aunt Marge or Emma Thompson’s failed portrayal of Hogwarts’ divination teacher Sybil Trelawney decreasing the Spaniard’s serious approach to the source material. However, Cuarón makes up for such flaws with a loveable style and new ways of story-telling his directorial predecessor Chris Columbus didn’t venture. I personally adored the cinematography of Michael Seresin, especially the establishing shots of season and location that were used in an almost Arthaus-fashion in Prisoner of Azkaban. Not only that, but Cuarón also fully succeeded (at least in my opinion) in making what is likely the most difficult story of all seven novels understandable. I had some issues with the obvious way he depicted Hermione’s time-travelling (if you didn’t get it by the fifth time Ron stated “Hermione, you weren’t there when we came into this class” then your intelligence might be sub-par), but he excelled himself in other parts, i.e. in the subject of Sirius Black. Cue Sirius Black, with Gary Oldman the director got a fantastic actor to work with and the Englishman established one of the most likeable characters in the series with an excellent performance. Three other wonderful English thespians joined the ever-growing HP cast, namely David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, and Michael Gambon, with the latter actually giving a better (and more philosophical) Dumbledore than the late Richard Harris. And despite a lot of problems I had in the first two films, the three main child actors got significantly better with Cuarón to direct them, which indicated for the first time that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are in fact talented actors. Altogether, I greatly enjoyed Prisoner of Azkaban, which turned out to be a humorous while still serious approach to J.K. Rowling’s novel and impressed me through outstanding visual (and aural John Williams did another splendid score) work.
The Nightmare Before Christmas is undeniably one of the most unique Christmas movies of all time and also put a completely new complexion on Disney movies. The beautifully conducted stop motion technique, the catchy musical numbers that may not be counted as Danny Elfman’s compositional masterpieces, but still make the movie a lot more entertaining than it would have been without them, and the weird sort of humour that isn’t to make you laugh out loud, but have you chuckling almost perpetually. Nevertheless, it’s still a bit disappointing that a movie this sort can still be boring here and there and the screenplay also isn’t always successful in maintaining an acceptable balance between child-oriented silliness and adult-suitability (though I adore the Hamlet reference). Through that, difficulties arise as the movie ends up being too ridiculous for most adults and too scary for most kids in the target audience. But still I’d say that sparing one hour and fifteen minutes to see this truly one-of-a-kind movie can’t hurt.
The last instalment in the Godfather trilogy, The Godfather Part III, has some obvious flaws. Including real life events out of the time of the Vatican’s crisis in the late 70’s and early 80’s, for one, let the whole plot seem a bit weird and didn’t work all the time. Even more crucial, the casting of Sofia Coppola as Michael’s grown-up daughter Mary. Although we’ve come to experience her directing qualities a decade later, she just didn’t succeed in her role and was utterly unconvincing throughout the film. And, as in the two first films, it’s also more than a tad too long, which makes for some rather dreary moments. Nevertheless, The Godfather Part III is a very good film and can very well compete with the rest of the series, despite being yet another step back from The Godfather’s initial quality. Not only can the audience still enjoy fabulous cinematography, set design, and score work (all of these securing the film’s respectable amount of Oscar nominations), but also some final 20 minutes that will keep The Godfather Part III in your memory. As we can relish in the insanely well-made shots of all the people that have just died under most unnatural circumstances, the crew concocts what are, in my opinion, the three best shots of all three films: Frederick Keinszig, hanging dead from a bridge, Calò stabbing Don Lucchesi with his own glasses, and Archbishop Gilday falling to his dead. It may be just a bit too little of everything to establish Part III’s place on the same shelf as the first two films in the series, but it’s still the great Francis Ford Coppola that directed it and made the most out of a story significantly less interesting than I had expected.
While I do consider it an outstanding movie, I don't love the original The Godfather and its prequel/sequel is actually a bit of a step back, in my opinion. The 200 minutes are a lot too long and get boring, even as I anticipatorily watched the movie on two consecutive evenings, and neither of the cross-cut story parts was as interesting and thrilling as the one the original movie had to offer. That isn't to say that The Godfather Part II skimps on entertaining and rememberable scenes; in fact, the movie's best moments may even be more rememberable than The Godfather's. However, a lot of the scenes in between are just too long and not really necessary what would have been needed a lot more were additional explanation scenes as the panoply of characters grows even bigger through the story being set in two different times and the dialogues give more focus to being pointed and quotable instead of making what happens fully clear. This is indubitably important, don't let me be misunderstood, but the huge plot that Mario Puzo has devised for The Godfather is simply too complex and convoluted to be easily grasped without having read the source material. Nevertheless, The Godfather Part II is a cinematic masterpiece that is sovereign and seminal on so many different layers, such as the beautifully picturesque cinematography, the smooth editing, the meticulously conceived set design, the innovative and unforgettable score by Nino Rota, and the tremendous acting cast that is reflected in the five Oscar nominations for acting (a tied record). Thus, The Godfather Part II is an undeniably excellent motion picture that merely suffers from the director's attempt to put too much in just one movie.
Gory thrillers are basically all that Scandinavian movies are famous for worldwide and Tomas Alfredson doesn’t want to share away from this with his vampire flick Let the Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in). But the Swedish production that has been showed at pretty much any film festival imaginable still isn’t what you’d call mainstream. The main characters are a twelve-year-old bullying victim and a vampiress of the same age just that she’s been twelve for a longer time. Now does that sound odd to you? Well, it is. Damn right it is. To spice up the somberly snowed landscape of the northernmost part of Europe with some blood is a great idea stylistically and the Dutch cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema knows exactly how can he make the murder scenes rememberable. However, he’s quite a singularity with this in the cast of Let the Right One In. One could pick on the fact that the child actors don’t feel genuine, the director has a way too austere approach to an unbelievable story, or that there isn’t any suspense at all, but eventually, all boils down to the mixture of horror, drama, romance, and coming-of-age story that just doesn’t work. For example, one scene shows a man brutally slaughtering another man, and the next shows the flirtation of two kids. But that alone wouldn’t have ruined the movie for me it’s a handful of plainly ridiculous scenes that made it impossible for me to take Let the Right One In seriously. In one, a woman gets attacked by a dozen cats in a Scary Movie manner, in another one, the same woman ignites herself in a hospital bed, and what we also get to see are the bare nether regions of a twelve-year-old girl a scene that confirms her previous comment, she isn’t a girl. Oh, and the best is yet to come: a close-up shot of a man who’s burned his face with acid! Think of it like The Dar Knight’s Two-Face with worse prosthetics. If there aren’t any of such idiotic moments, time is bypassed with boring dialogs, which accumulate to a sheerly unendurable sum over the course of almost two hours running time. All of this is disappointing, considering the potential some rare scenes show as in the one, in which protagonist Oskar visits his divorced father and the lovely father-son-ambiance suddenly leaves as a buddy of his father stops by and leads him away from the offspring and to alcohol. This particular scene is short and mostly silent, but still probably the best of the film because it for once manages to emotionally affect the audience. The overall product though, is really disappointing. You can’t accuse Let the Right One In of using clichés, but that alone doesn’t make a film original in this case, it only makes it to an unfrightening horror film, an unmoving romance, and a drama too ridiculous to take seriously.
Hungarian director Nimród Antal’s debut was screened at the Prix Un Certain Regard of the Cannes Film Festival 2003 and with the suspense horror Vacancy, he establishes himself as a hope for future European independent cinema. This rather short Hitchock homage does have an A-list cast, including Kate Beckinsale, Luke Wilson, and Frank Whaley, but as we’ve seen well enough in the last couple of years, that alone doesn’t make for a good horror movie. Vacancy proves otherwise though, and impresses with never-ending thrill, creditable and genuine acting, and a completely rational story. After the nicely designed title sequence, the movie commences without any digressions, but it will take some time to completely grasp the situation. The screenplay deftly includes the needed information into the everyday dialogues of the two protagonists and knows just how much exposition is enough. Through that, the actual horror can quickly kick in and after not even 20 minutes, you’ll already have goosebumps and hands tied to the chair. The macabre game can begin and a difficult to watch assemblage of snuff films is followed by a nocturnal chase through an isolated motel, which doesn’t always omit clichés but conceals them through the director’s original and unpredictable ideas. However, the greatest asset stays the almost unendurable suspense, which makes for such an uncomfortable viewing that on one side, you’ll want to quit the movie and on the other, keeps you hooked in front of the TV. The movie completely lays down all horror stereotypes in its final act by staging it in sunlight, and it may for a moment seem that it degenerates into the bizarre. Fortunately, that’s not the case, and Antal stirs up a mysterious open end that is without equal. As the credits start in the style of the title sequence, you’ll not only be relieved to stop shivering, but also exhilarated to have ultimately seen a really great horror movie.
Even though Nolan has several good approaches, Insomnia is nothing more than generic, unspectacular, and forgettable in the long run. Hillary Seitz’s adapted screenplay is laden with crime show stereotypes and gratuitous dialogue but lacks real character development or any unique elements. The best example for this is Hilary Swank who obviously has the most unfavourable role as an aspiring assistant detective that wants nothing more than to get advise from the old-established cop. Due to all of that, remarkable achievements in terms of visuals can’t help the film anymore than Pacino’s dedicated acting and Insomnia is best watched on a weekday evening while eating lunch and conversing with your partner.
How can any reasonable human being give this movie a good rating? I abhorred every second of Drag Me to Hell and despite admitting that it wasn’t badly made in terms of set design, cinematography, or editing, for example, it suffers from a director who can’t seem to decide if he wants to make a parody on horror movies or an actual horror movie and ends up making one of the hugest pieces of in recent years (I could, in fact, re-use all of these words when writing a review for The Cabin in the Woods, another outrageously overrated rubbish). Limiting himself to a PG-13 rating, Raimi at least spares the audience more atrociously surrealistic CGI gore effects, but the 3rd highest as well as lowest of MPAA classifications still leaves space for idiotic dialogs, shameless copying from other horror flicks, and blatant predictability. I’m not saying that I wasn’t frightened by parts of it, yet for most of the time, I was offended and disgusted by this ghastly made movie. Critics that call it ironic or even hilarious just have to be paid by Universal Pictures since there is no other valid explanation for entitling a movie ‘ironic’ when it obviously isn’t aware of how stupid it is. And now don’t come to me with “it’s only for the purpose of entertainment” besides all of that it’s still a dull and dreary movie that is laden with tons of clichés. Drag Me to Hell? Drag me out of the cinema!
This movie isn't the funniest, the most touching, or the most realistic, yet a lovely and rememberable mixture of all three. I thought that some of the scenes, especially the first scene at the house of Natalie Portman's character, were over-the-top and just didn't hit my sense of humor, but that's fine since the ones that made me smile were definitely predominant. Zach Braff proves to not only have a talent for acting, but also writing and directing and until he finally releases a new movie, we'll have to content ourselves with watching Garden State over and over again something that I am very keen on doing.
Looper portrays time-travelling better than most movies and also includes some maybe unexpected emotional messages that make it more than just an entertaining sci-fi flick. Director Rian Johnson gives us just enough explanation to understand the time-travelling aspects and at some parts, re-thinking what happened later on is almost necessary. However, because of this, you don’t get the feeling that information is being thrown at you to help you with comprehending. It has good acting even in little supporting roles, distances itself from typical Hollywood movies with sometimes long dialogue sequences but also several wordless shots, and has absolutely sightly visuals. It profits from the self-ironic approach of director Rian Johnson and its little flaws can be forgiven. Due to all of that, it becomes a movie that you are definitely going to remember and that you will do well in buying on DVD or Blu-Ray since watching it a second time and then fully grasping everything that's going on is just as much fun as the first time.
I personally found Moon to be a very interesting and thought-provoking movie that was also deeply stirring and emotional. The great score by Clint Mansell (the genius behind Requiem for a Dream's music) gave the scenes an auxiliary touching effect and Sam Rockwell acts absolutely masterfully. The visuals are definitely not as interesting as in some other movies of its genre, yet the look is quite an achievement if you consider the small budget. An issue that pretty much everyone will face while watching Moon is that it tends to be quite tedious and you will really lose interest during some of the long wordless shots. However, that didn't bother me that much since there were lots of other well-made scenes and the general feeling I had while watching the movie, which was an unsettling sadness. Moon is relatively unique and impressing and I'd recommend it to everyone who appreciates material to think about when watching a movie.
With Case 39 we have another uninteresting psychological horror movie that follows the same formula as many movies of its genre before it. Renée Zellweger’s kindhearted social worker discovers a 10-year-old-girl named Lilith that seems to be heavily mistreated by her parents, yet her superiors don’t let our protagonist interfere until the parents attempt to make dinner out of their offspring. But as it turns out, just because little Lily is freed from her parents, the movie isn’t over. Mysterious things start to happen and Bridget Jones starts to get into real trouble. I was quite skeptic about this movie because after the film was shot, it took three whole years to get it into cinemas. I’m unsure what the reasons for the numerous delays of the release date were, but I suppose it’s got something to do with how bad the movie is. Admittedly, it’s not one of the worst horror movies in any time period and even though it’s about ten minutes too long, I was entertained by it most of the time. However, the movie totally fails at what it’s aiming to be and is just another unrememberable and unsatisfying horror flick. Plus, it contains one of the most ridiculous movie death scenes OF ALL TIME (no exaggeration here, I’m telling you) that seriously dilutes the credibility of the actor in it. And not to forget, its jump scares are even more predictable than the storyline and the ending is a chaotically idiotic water catastrophe similar, yet even less fulfilling, to the one in 2009’s Orphan. Case 39 is not a most outrageous failure and I understood and liked some of the ideas that German director Christian Alvart had. The casting of Lilith was also well done since the girl who plays her manages to bounce likeability and craziness surprisingly good. In fact, she is even better than some of her adult colleagues, *cough* Ian McShane *cough*. This can’t prevent the movie from becoming a stereotypical, overlong, and not really frightening misstep that won’t be remembered by anyone in a couple of weeks, however.
Tim Burton's weird adaption of Roald Dahl's novel is a partly hilarious movie that stars a fantastic Johnny Depp as the maverick chocolatier and Freddie Highmore as the eponymous boy who is allowed to pay a visit to the former's mysterious chocolate factory. While the funny, yet not at all musically complex musical numbers are a welcome and amusing gimmick and Depp provides all-ages-entertainment at its best, very little of this movie stays in memory. The production design and the costumes are impressive, but it's the 21st century and a creative director like Mr. Burton could've really made more out of the source material. Furthermore, most of the movie's cast is miserable and extremely overacts their parts. The bad performances are also bred by the utterly silly screenplay that may contain good laughs for pre-school kids, however, is oftentimes boring and really cheaply written. I can't help myself but think that Mr. Burton didn't even utilize half of the potential that the original story has. But besides that, it's a very enjoyable family movie that has truly humorous scenes for both kids and adults.
fashion designer turned director/writer/producer Tom Ford provided the biggest cinematic surprise in the whole year 2009 with his debut picture A Single Man. I've always liked films about homosexuality (okay, most of them. There's rubbish in this genre as well) and this one is an absolute stand-out. Colin Firth foreshadowed his creaming off the profits for follow-up The King's Speech, with his ceaselessly realistic turn as a secretly gay college professor who grieves about the death of his long-time lover. While 2010's TKS is a such a flawless perfection of movie making, ASM's plot is more interesting and the final good is mesmerizingly artsy. Nicholas Hoult, relatively unknown by the time this film was made, impresses as the young student who comes in the life of Firth's character after his loss, and Matthew Goode makes the best out of his little screen time. I never expected that a first-time-filmmaker would be able to stun me as much as Tom Ford did with this movie. The use of colors to express emotions, the ability to turn mundane conversations into such absorbing dialogue, the knowledge of how to use the score (oh, so beautiful!) in due time, etc. It's not a movie to watch many times since it gets a bit boring then, but at first watch, you'll be overwhelmed by this movie.
I really think this movie has a great story to start with. But what James Wong made out of this story is just sad. And with sad I mean sad in a way of “How could you transform such a nice story in a movie as bad as this?”. It's not that type of movie where everything is bad, I have to say that the score created fine suspense, the acting was really not as bad as I expected, and there were some good shots in. Yet, the screenplay. HOW BAD WAS THIS SCREENPLAY? I'm honestly surprised that it didn't receive credit at the Golden Raspberry Awards. I mean, the ending of this movie was so illogical and stupid. I wasn't expecting a good screenplay, but this was just too much for me. And, oh, the dialogue. There were dialogue parts in this movie that created a new unit of stupidity. This movie is actually the best example if you want to prove that the screenplay is the most important part of the movie because with an at least okay screenplay this film would've been a lot better, but it's just totally like this. Being entertained by people getting killed is sick in any case but if you are entertained by a movie as bad as this, you seriously need some help.
While the acting is only mediocre and there's a lot that I could criticize about the screenplay, I want to focus on the good stuff: regarding its genre, I never expected that this movie would surprise me. There were 2 things in the plot, that really threw me a curve and this was very nice to see, since many movies don't manage to do so. It had a nice visual style and some soundtrack choices fitted the movie very good as well (there were also ones), although I've got to say that the cinematography was too shaky, which annoyed me in a couple of scenes. The fight scenes in the movie look good, yet it's not really exciting to watch because there are lots and lots of clichés in this movie. But mostly, this movie is insanely illogical and stupid. After all, I did enjoy watching Green Street Hooligans, mostly because of the fact that the characters were elaborate and it brought a nice style with it. But if you want a good movie not just simple entertainment, stay away from this one it's really overrated.
I would've never thought that this movie would degenerate so much. Most of its second half is just immensely stupid and unbearably preposterous. While the beginning is suspenseful and seems to build up a good horror movie with a snowballing amount of frightening scenes, it just totally falls apart at the end. I could have lived with some of the absurd stuff happening in Orphan before, but at some point it was just enough. It decayed in illogical, dumbly disturbing action that wasn't enjoyable in any possible way. This is pretty disappointing regarding the way the movie started and continued during the first hour: it kept you interested about Esther, the screenplay introduced us better to the other parts of the family as well, the scenes that were supposed to scare you scared me. Everything like it should be in a good psychological horror. But when the grotesque truth about Esther is finally revealed, I was sitting there like “This is why I usually don't like horror movies.” It was a very unpleasant experience, not only because the extremely disturbing things the orphan girl is doing in this movie, but also because it leaves you sitting there, pondering about why you've ever took this movie seriously. Okay, Isabelle Fuhrmann did a surprising job as Esther although I didn't enjoy her that much since the screenplay wasn't really good and Vera Fermiga was a good lead, mostly. However, this ending just makes you angry because it totally destroys a movie that could've been good, but ends up being an imbecile disaster. Seriously, this ending was one of the worst I've seen in movie history.
Maybe I think like this because my local cinema didn't pause the movie, but this was just so tedious. While the intro of the movie was a rather weak debut, the second chapter was ceaselessly sublime and full with great, rememberable scenes. Anne Hathaway's performance was perfect, but sadly this can't be said about the bigger part of the others. While Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen added admirably funny touch the movie, I was quite disappointed with the rest of the cast. Yes, they were all good, but it's just not what I expected from such a big production. Hugh Jackmann did a great job most of the times, but I think his turn in this movie is overrated. The singing was also not as good as I expected it to be. So much about the acting. A big plus point of the film is how it looks. Cinematography, make-up, costumes, set design, etc. are all quite Oscar- worthy. So the only major problem of mine with 'Les Miz' was the exhausting length. I admit that I've seen neither a stage performance nor an other movie based on Victor Hugo's novel in all my life therefore I was a total newbie to the story therefore I can't agree with the people that have read/seen 'Les Misérables' before and consider it a too short adaption of the story because the 158 minutes of this movie were already much too long for me. But let's go back to the point where I was actually loving the movie, which is about the first hour and 15 minutes. After this second chapter was over and time fast-forwarded once again, the entertainment factor got lost in the skipped years. The revolution and the film's big love story are the new plot-points and that was far less interesting as the story of the films 2nd part. I admit, it was made totally fine, but it was just missing something to jazz it up (Anne Hathaway probably would've helped). All in all, if you haven't seen any form of the story before like I did, you'll be better off getting the movie on home media so you can take a big break at some point you'll need that.
This film is so beautiful. It's perceptibly different from the novel, but I think it's a perfect adaption probably because of the fact that the author of the TPOBAW novel, Stephen Chbosky, did write the screenplay to the movie as well and even directed it. And he was successful. The cast is so right and the dialogues are fantastic. There are so many magnificent things about this movie, i.e. the awesome soundtrack or the beautiful pictures of the night, but my tiny issue with this film is the same that I had with the novel: the ending does seem a bit out of place. Though I have to say that the ending was way better than in the novel mainly because it just appears better with flashbacks and this wonderful score in the background. It's one excellent movie and not only for wallflowers.
Against my expectance, this movie marks as the seldom case, in which the sequel is just as good as the original. Iron Man 2 is funnier, louder and provides a lot more explosions. Nevertheless, Jon Favreau doesn't leave good performances and a proper screenplay out. Additionally, the technics and the FXs are great, which helped the movie to become as awesome as it is. My critic point is that too many things in this film are unrealistic and as in Iron Man, there are a lot of so-called “Cinema Sins” like stupid dialogues, obvious goofs or simply illogicality. That is quite an issue, but doesn't prevent this movie from being an even better superhero-movie than the original.
Iron Man is awesome! Robert Downey Jr. is great while the supporting actors are not inferior to him. The screenplay is very good, the few actual action scenes are well made and the characters are relatable and not just after a certain pattern. It's sad that Marvel hasn't made another movie like this because it's outstanding for a sci-fi-action movie. There are a couple of flaws with it (mainly in the end battle between Downey Jr. and Bridges) that hamper Iron Man from being a totally awesome movie, but it sure as hell is one of the best superhero-movies I've seen in my life.
Whereas the story is quite interesting (though unbelievable) and the execution of it is made well, this short comedy is rather lousy. Everything is so unrealistic and exaggerated and there's no actual connection coming up between the audience and the characters. Overly clichéd and never funny, it's not really a bad picture, but also nothing I'd recommend in any sort.
It's a dumb movie, but there's a big difference between simply dumb and hilariously dumb and Hot Fuzz certainly belongs to the latter. Edgar Wright knows how to parody stuff and he did it right again with this 2007 cop mockery. The screenplay is great, the line of high-class British film-stars in the cast is awfully funny, and the numerous running gags and cult film references will give every movie lover a reason to keep Hot Fuzz in their DVD rack. It does get exaggeratedly dumb at times and 116 minutes are maybe a smidge too long, but that's totally venial, considering how awesome the rest of the movie is.
While the cast is very good, the screenplay including all these hilarious running gags is great and the Indian setting is amiable, the meaning of this 2007 road movie falls by the wayside. After the jump-off-the-train scene, the audience is just as the lead characters: confused. Not even the ending is fulfilling and therefore, The Darjeeling Limited is nothing more than a weird Asia trip that isn't able to build an enjoyable ensemble on its many enjoyable moments.
Paranormal Activity marks as the strange case, in which the sequel (ok, it's actually a prequel) is better than the original film. However, the 2nd part of the horror movie series is still a bad film. While there are some nice scenes and I like the fact that it's highly related to Paranormal Activity, it's still a cheap horror flick that culminates in another strange ending (it's nothing against the stupidity of PA's conclusion, but since those two are very related to each other, this one's also quite dumb.) Additionally, it takes itself 72% of the runtime to present the first jump-scare, which is a shame for a movie of this genre. And if that wasn't enough, all of the jump-scare moments are stupid as hell and I personally think that the vibe of these movies is very boring.
This is actually one of the best book adaptions ever. It's almost impossible to tell a story accurately with such little dialogues and without a narrator voice, but the Coen brothers accomplished it fantastically. A perfect cast till minor roles and Javier Bardem makes one of the best film villains of all time! The style of the film is absolutely unique and the mixture of western, thriller and satire is excellent. The ending is realistic and leaves a couple of questions open, which makes you think a lot about the film afterwards. Everything seems sophisticated, even how scenes succeed on one another and that's what is so fantastic about this movie. Everything that happens in No Country For Old Men keeps your eyes peeled on the TV screen, even if it's just normal dialogue. I.e. the showdown between Chigurh and Moss, which is one of the most thrilling scenes I've seen lately or the Chigurh's conversation with the gas station proprietor which is absolutely awesome. The screenplay, the direction and Javier Bardem totally deserved the Oscar. There were better movies in 2006 but this flick is a very favorable tale about bad people that is both confusing and stunning.
The action is unlogical - just like the plot - and officious, the comedy isn't there. The punchlines got punched so weak by Mr. Pitt & Mrs. Jolie, I was impressed by how bad they are able to play. Most of that is because of the unbelievably stupid screenplay that snitches ideas from pretty much every action comedy before this one. Some parts can be considered okay and the scene where Adrian Brody is kidapped even made me smirk. However, 95% of this overlong and completely dull flick got me surprised of how poor Hollywood movies can get nowadays.
Ed Wood impresses with a good cast (though it can get confusing with the many speaking parts it exhibits) but is a film that leads into nowhere. Obviously, Burton reveres Wood in some strange way, but he can't (or just doesn't) stop this biography of drifting off into a boring tale of a strange transvestite. A 80 minute flick would've told everything that needed to be told. But besides the protrecting, Ed Wood is an interesting as well as odd story and you can have a nice time with it.
The two things that make "An Unexpected Journey" not that good as we all have hoped are its length and the inappropriate funny stuff Jackson mixes into it. The dwarfs and their burping and quaffing destroy the mystic feeling of Middle-earth and turn the movie into a unfunny comedy. Luckily, only the first third of the film is ruled by the dwarfs, the rest is focused on the great battles and the wonderful views of Tolkien's world. But Peter Jackson's habit to turn every little story, as tiny as it may be, into a three-hour-picture is really pesky. Less dwarfs, less battles, less pseudo-humorous talk and we would've got a much better film. But after all, the first part of The Hobbit is dominated by the Oscar-deserving visuals and acoustics, a mostly felicitous cast and fantasy stuff, that is simply amazing to see. Just because of the 3D, the cinema ticket is worth its price. Eventually, you have to keep in mind that this is only the initiation to a hopefully marvelous journey.
A perfect motion picture. It's not about a serial killer, it's about a mysterious man who gets involved into a crime that makes him to a (very brutal) serial killer. This guy seems abstracted, somewhat even ****, but Ryan Gosling plays him condignly human. These moments when he stares into blankness are stunning, just because of the beautiful cinematography and the awesome soundtrack (this is one of the best movie scores of all time, for what it's worth). Drive captivates you ab initio and doesn't even stop after the movie is finished. It makes you think about beguilement and the craziness of people and that gets exhibited radically explicit. But on the other hand the movie isn't specialized on character sketches or telling long rigmaroles, it only shows you what is absolutely necessary. Oscar nominations for cinematography, production design, score, original song and maybe also editing would have been just. And not to forget the acting, which is also great and absolutely fits the film. I personally love Drive and I can't find anything that disappoints me with this movie.
It's odd. At some points that's nice but at some other points that makes the movie silly. I couldn't get in touch with the main character and almost any other character seems kind of deranged. It's much too long and the love story is made idoticly long. A heavily overrated motion picture that only goes strong with its awesome narration, the cinematography and the fantastic soundtrack. Maybe I wasn't in the right mood for it but the romance isn't loveable at all. It's rather boring and a goony image of love and relationships between people.
A family movie how it should be. Home Alone mixes comedy, drama and jimjams how it's done right! I like the two Wet Bandits, they're gloriously funny and when Kevin pranks those two it's simply awesome. John Williams' score is really nice and Chris Columbus makes a great mixture of pretty brutal slapstick and also parts of situation comedy. An incedribly funny motion picture, which is one of the very few movies that really bring you in an appropriate christmas spirit. I love this film, regardless of its overeager playing.
So, John Cusack, Oliver Platt and Zlatko Buric are total dabblers in acting and Roland Emmerich is completely untalented in terms of writing. But 2012 is no 0-points-movie. There are some nice actors in this box-office-success and when the German director is making whole LA drown, it is impressive. But this movie is just unfavorable. This so damn overlong film is fully packed with buildings crumbling, waves overflooding great areas, earthquakes destroying whole cities and CGI everywhere. Too much of that, Mr. Emmerich! I have to grant him that he managed to put emotion in it with the family stuff surrounding John Cusack's role. This guy totally **** at acting and his movie kids relegated him when they were playing together, but this one particular scene at the end of the movie touched me. But for all that it's not really hard to make such a scene emotional when you've got a nice soundtrack and a near-death-experience with a family as the story. So, is 2012 worth watching? Not really, because the FX aren't that good to make you enjoy the movie (I just overthought the movie and I get that you can never really enjoy a movie with such a plot!) and the dialogues are plain stupid. However, it's not that bad because of some nice actors and good editing, score and cinematography stuff.
It's an awesome adventure speaking of special effects. The team around this movie created such a great world, all props go to the CGI team. But in other aspects, this movie is too long, the cast is only mediocre (Jack Black is bad) and it's got a ragged editing. The succeeding of scenes is often poor and so is the whole script. Nonetheless those things, I enjoyed the fantasy world really much and it's an entertaining and cool picture.
