johnslegers

"The Boondock Saints" seems to be one of those films you either hate or love. I'm most definitely among the lovers out there and the reason for this is simple : out of all action films I've ever seen, "The Boondock Saints" seemed the most entertaining, the most visually appealing, the most original and the funniest to me. Sure, "The Boondock Saints" is no "Citizen Kane", but that's something I never expected in the first place. There are some major plot holes, most characters are caricatures and the acting isn't the best around, but if you manage to ignore this there is a lot to like about this film. Being raised in a Flemish labor class family, my cultural background is very much like that of the two main characters. As such, I found the motivations, the philosophy, the personalities and humor of the main characters very recognizable and very appealing. I suspect this may also be a major reason why there are so many haters. If you do not have any affinity with Irish labor class culture or mentality, then you may just not "get it". I'm not saying you must be a factory worker to like this film, though. My own job is programming web applications. Then there's the visuals. Duffy opted for a non-linear way of telling his story that with a unique combination of fast-paced action, some experimental editing and a matching music score. While "Pulp Fiction" undoubtedly inspired Duffy's style, it's still far too different from Tarantino's typical style or anything else I've ever seen to be considered a rip-off. Tarantino based his own style on the dozens of films from the '70s he saw as a teenager, but does that make "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction" any less original or unique? Most of all, though, "The Boondock Saints" is just fun. Invite some of your friends over, grab a few beers and just enjoy the fact-paced action, the sometimes very foul-mouthed or very dark humor and debate with your friends whether you'd think it would be a blessing or a curse if "The Boondock Saints" were actually real and not just a story made up by Duffy. For me, that's the perfect setting for a film like this.

Desperation. Emptiness. Idealism. Naivity. "The Dreamers" reflects the lives of those middle class adolescents in the late '60s who felt the need to revolt against the mainstream without really understanding what they were revolting against and what they wanted instead. "The Dreamers" reflects the disconnect between a generation of adolescents lost in bourgeois society, longing to get out but not knowing how. Our main character is your generic intellectual who's living among people of a different culture and finds some people he connects with. He's dragged along a roller-coaster of sexual tension and alienation and enjoys every little bit of it, but in the end he realizes he's been living in a dream, he wakes up and moves on. The symbolism is deep. The emotions are deep. I've rarely been this impressed by a movie, so all I can say is this : watch it with an open mind and let yourself go....

I love a good political or social satire. "Thank You For Smoking", "How to Get Rid of the Others", "Land of the Blind" and "Idiocracy" are among my favorite films. "War Inc" attempts to be a film just like those, but if fails in every way. "War Inc" takes place in a fictional country. Where "Land of the Blind" shows us a country that reminds us of at least half a dozen of countries and eras (from 18th century France, Mussolini's Italy and Lenin's Russia to '50s South-America and '70s Northern-Ireland), "War Inc" gives us nothing but a poor American caricature of the Middle-East. At no time did Turaqistan remotely seem like an actual country, not even a Middle-Eastern country like it's supposed to be. As a satire, however, this recognisability is essential for it to work. The humor in "Thank You For Smoking", "How to Get Rid of the Others" and "Land of the Blind" is all clever and subtle. "Idiocracy" gives us a shallow layer of "Beavis & Butthead"-like **** humor and a deeper layer of intelligent humour actually making fun of those who enjoy the first layer (which many seem to miss). "War Inc" gives us none of that. For most of the film, the humor usually seems either absent or too over-the-top ("Scary Movie" style), totally losing its effect for me. The story is not very interesting either. The story of occupation and corporate greed is overshadowed by the dull interaction between a frustrated deep cover assassin, a self-conscious anti-war journalist and a confused teenage pop star, making most of the film completely uninteresting. Who would I recommend this film to? I honestly don't know. Personally I don't think it's worth wasting your time on.

I never read the graphic novel, but I've seen the film several times now and I can hardly get enough of it. For those of you unaware of the plot, it is a compelling film noir mystery thriller about a group of people who become superheroes, are then used by the US government to fight its enemies and are later discarded by the US government. One of the group was murdered and the others start investigating we he had to die. Interesting about the back story is that both the socio-political climate and characters are well-developed and realistic. The use of superheroes by the US allowed the Sovjetunion and US to become more polarized than in our reality, making the US government far more conservative and bringing the world very close to nuclear holocaust. The superheroes all have their own unique character traits, each based on real and flawed human beings like I've met in my own life. What's most interesting about the plot of Watchmen is the way these different personalities interact with one another and how they set themselves apart from the rest of humanity. What sets this film apart from other films, however, is an audiovisual style few people besides Zack Snyder could actually pull off. The visuals are simply breathtaking throughout the entire film and the audio adds to the atmosphere the way only a few other films can. Watching the film, I feel immersed in a surreal dream and the first time I sat glued to my chair for the entire duration because of the sheer beauty of the visuals, the interesting plot and the fascinating characters. Maybe the graphic novel was even more compelling as the film plot-wise, I don't think anyone could have done a better job making a film based on the graphic novel. Please remember that graphic novel and film are two different media and you'll never be able to tell the entire story of a multiple edition graphic novel into a single film, however you'll also never be able to control the pacing, acting and soundtrack **** novel. It is my opinion that those who didn't like this film either ignore the differences between the two different media and are frustrated by the film straying from the graphic novel more often than they would like or simply didn't get the story and lost interest due to their confusion. After seeing this film several time, I can't really find anything not to like about this film.

Put a bunch of typical (read : annoying) teenagers partying in a huge mansion, feed them with alcohol and sex and let an axe murderer ruin the party. That's pretty much the idea. Although there are some huge plot holes and the characters are too unlikable too care for, this didn't ruin the entertainment value for me. The atmosphere and style of this film is very reminiscent of "All the boys love Mandy Lane" as well as the old fashioned '80s slasher films. If this is what you're looking for, you're probably gonna enjoy this film. However, don't expect it to be anything more than that. It sure as h*** ain't no Shakespeare (to stick with the ghetto language of some of this film's characters).

I kinda like how the movie started out, but it went all awry very very fast. Laurence Fishburne as Perry Mason? Really? No Jimmy Olson? Really? Lois Lane finds out from the start that Clark Kent is superman? Really? Kent saves an entire bus filled with school children but his identity remains unknown? Really? In spite of that, Kent lets his father die because his father doesn't want him to reveal his identity? Really? And finally, are we really supposed to root for some guy who knowingly destroys half a city along with the future of his own species in the middle of a testosterone fueled fight? Really? Also, both my girlfriend and I had more sympathy for Zod and his crew (who were more or less the only rational people in the story) than for Clark Kent or any of the other "good guys", which is quite telling considering how one-dimensional the villains were overall.

I finally got to see Burton's Alice In Wonderland and I really wonder what all the fuzz is about. The film isn't nearly as good as Burton's best work, but it isn't nearly as bad as some claim it is either. Although he seems to have past the peak of his career, Tim Burton at least managed to turn a horrible script in a mediocre but visually appealing film film and while it's a shame Alice wasn't the masterpiece it could have been (especially if it was based on the American McGee game) I don't think it deserves to get all the hate it gets either. If you're a fan of the original book, the famous Disney cartoon version or the American McGee computer game you're probably going to be disappointed for the lost opportunities in this film, but if you like Burtons sense of aesthetics it's still a pleasant film to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

I watched "Gwoemul" aka "The Host" expecting a campy monster movie in the style of Godzilla or Cloverfield and while I was watching it I learned it was actually a social critique of post-modern South-Korean society and most particular the destructive nature of American political and cultural influence. This critique was done with a clever mixture of drama and comedy behind the backdrop of a monster story and filled with far more symbolism than I've ever seen in any European or American film. The cinematography and the special effects were also more than decent. Fans of typical monster movies probably won't like this film since it's just not a typical monster movie by any standard. If you are, however, a fan of political satire and you're not afraid of some cultural experimentation you may consider this a masterpiece.

Why is this film so praised? Our protagonists are a naive stuck-up girl right out of college and an equally stuck-up cynical actor. Neither show any real interest in Japanese culture (he's even quite disrespectful) and neither makes any really attempt to connect with the Japanese (even though they both get the chance to connect). Even though she seems to have a degree in philosophy and he seems to be somewhat of an intellectual type, their interactions remain mostly superficial. And still, their interaction with one another is pretty much everything we get to see for this entire film. I guess this film appeals to people just as pretentious and shallow as the main protagonist (which is the only reason I can think of to explain its popularity), but I personally found it hard to connect with either of them AT ALL. Further, I wonder how much sense it makes for their relationship to have remained purely platonic. Both seem to be estranged from their respective spouses, his wife is on the other side of the ocean, her husband is on a photo shoot for several days, both act like they haven't had sex in a long time, she's a beautiful impressionable young girl, he's a famous actor, they both don't shun alcohol and at one point they become close enough to lie together on a bed while he touches her feet. Maybe it's just me, but I personally find it hard to believe they didn't end up having sex together considering the aforementioned conditions. Anyway, the shame and confusion arising from such a situation (after both realise they made a mistake cheating their respective spouse) would at least have made a far more interesting film to watch Maybe this film appeals to people who never spent more than a few days in a foreign country, but having spent about 3 months in Poland I couldn't see anything I haven't experienced myself AT A FAR GREATER INTENSITY. For me, this makes "Lost In Translation" as exciting to watch as two people sitting at a bus stop waiting for the bus to arrive. Actually the latter would probably be more interesting, because the bus doesn't take THAT long to arrive.

Having seen both "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" I can't say I'm really impressed by Michael Moore. In the hands of Michael Moore, US politics turns into a simplistic me-vs-you game where Republicans are all stupid gun-toting white thrash and Liberals are decent educated citizens who want to save the US from the stupidity of the right. The fact that Bush and Obama are both mere puppets of Wall Street moguls is something Moore seems to be entirely unaware of as he hails the Democratic party for their greatness. Then there's this piece of thrash called "An American Carol" also known as "Big Far Important Movie" in Europe. Considering I'm pretty critical of the pseudo-dissident propaganda Moore called documentaries myself, I was curious to see a parody film focusing of a Moore caricature. Boy oh boy... When Bush-supporters saw Moore's liberal propaganda, they must have figured : let's do the same. No wait, they figured, let's make it a film even MORE exaggerated, MORE distorted, MORE offensive and dealing with LESS to the point arguments. Why not make it a comedy, so we don't really need to make an effort to at least pretend we have an argument like you would have to if you make a documentary. Let's just bring this film at the level of the absolute lowest common denominator (the kind of people who enjoyed "Scare Movie 3") so we're certain we won't go over the heads of our target audience. Such a movie will show all those evil liberals and all the Eurotrash out there that America is number one.... number one.... number one..... Vor uns liegt Amerika, in uns marschiert Amerika, und hinter uns kommt Amerika! Anyway... Unless you want to take a look at how low American "neo-conservatism" can go in an attempt to hire more recruits and flame the liberals, then watch this film. If you're an "Intelligent Design" (which is apparently NOT the same as Creationism although there is technically no real difference) supporting Christion-Zionist WASP, then watch this film. Everyone else, spare the effort. It's not really funny, the jokes are not to the point and it stars Bill O' Reilly of all people. Oh, and I'm a European conservative... not a liberal, not a Muslim and not a pacifist. I'm a European conservative who seriously wonders where American conservatism went wrong.

I think the target audience for this film is too small. Hardcore programmers will dislike this film because the code they used was pretty much bullc*** code and because the way this company doesn't really resemble the atmosphere in a real IT company (I know from experience). Also, the entire plot was way too far-fetched to really come off as realistic at any time. People not into IT are not likely to enjoy this film either, since there's too much techno-babble for anyone not familiar with IT to get some insight in what's going on half of the time. When they speak of an IP address, an interface, an OS or decompressing the audience is expected to understand all of these terms to have an idea of what's happening. So what's left as a possible target audience is a group of geeky kids and teenagers who're into computers enough to understand all the techno-babble but who are too naive and inexperienced to have any idea what working in an IT company feels like.... Not a good move, I'd say. Overall the movie does make a decent effort to keep some tension alive, but the far-fetched plot, the silly situation, the more than average amount of techno-babble and the bullc*** code seriously limit the possible target audience for this film.

As I just finished watching "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra", I seriously wonder what kind of abomination the Hollywood film industry has become when its major blockbusters are reduced to two hour long toy commercials filled with fancy CGI but lacking a coherent story whatsoever. Any man born in the early eighties somewhere in Western society remembers GI Joe as one of the coolest toy franchises that (just like "Transformers") had its own cartoon series to make the toys notorious. And boy, notorious they were. Millions of young boys dreamed of having their own plastic Cobra army going against the brave plastic Joe's and of course (unlike the cartoon) defeating them every now and then. I don't remember much of the cartoon series, to be honest, but boy do I remember those fascinating Cobra outfits. Those were the days... Now we're 20 years later and the toy companies have moved up. Instead of using cartoons to sell their toys, they're using movies. And boy, do they ****. "Transformers" was an empty shell of a film, "Transformers 2" managed to be even worse and then there was "GI Joe". All I can say is "WOW"... What a way to ruin our childhood memories. "GI Joe" consists of little more than one action scene after the other. While this is not a bad thing per se (I actually liked "Crank" and even "Shoot 'em up" the first time I saw them), the audience of "GI Joe" witnesses its intelligence being consistently insulted by a story that lacks any character development whatsoever, that lacks a coherent plot, that defies physics on a continuous basis and that is so filled with CGI I sometimes felt I was watching an animation film. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but going throughout this film and remotely taking it seriously is another. Is there any more blatant way to rip off an existing franchise and use film as a way to advertise a new line of toys? And you know what... The one thing that made "GI Joe" so fascinating as a kid was the cool "Cobra" outfits and they managed to ruin that as well. ####, even the toys look like ####! Watch this film only if you want to get a glimpse of how ridiculously sub par Hollywood blockbusters have become and you feel like making fun of it. Even as a "turn off your brain and enjoy" kind of film, this film is just too moronic to watch in any other setting... unless you're as stupid as the lowest common denominators this film seems to be targeted for. In that case, I pity you.

If you're one of those people who can't enjoy a film with some major plot holes, done watch this film. Otherwise, it's a must see. District 9 is a film that's original at many levels. The CGI is beyond average. The dialogs are decent. The pacing is decent. The satire is successful. The location and choice of actors is unique. etc. If only it had a more credibly plot, this could have been the best film of 2009. Unfortunately this is where the film fails miserable, but to me pretty much everything else about District 9 saves the film and puts it at a level way beyond mediocrity. Therefore I still recommend this film, even though I would prefer a more credible plot.

After looking forward to seeing both "Epic" by Blue Sky Studios and "Frozen" by Disney, I saw both of them this weekend. The main character of "Epic" looks like a twin of the main character of "Frozen". Also, one movie deals with cold vs warm and the other deals with decay vs growth. Finally, both movies rely a lot on beautiful nature shots. For these reasons, I felt I should review both together. "Frozen" was much better than I expected. Frozen reminded me a lot of traditional Disney classics like Snow White, Dumbo or Bambi. Yes there was singing, but the singing was surprisingly traditional without sounding corny and outdated. Unlike in most cartoons that involve singing, in "Frozen" it enhanced the experience rather than being a turn-off. "Frozen" also had a rather well-developed story. It wasn't a traditional good-vs-evil story where the good were perfect and the bad haven't got a single redeeming quality. It also wasn't yet another generic "we must remain ourselves and fight tradition" story like Mulan, Brave and so many others out there. The characters felt more real than I'm used to in a Disney flick and combined with some humor that actually works, that makes "Frozen" one of the most entertaining animations I've seen in a long time. "Epic" was an "epic failure" in all of these area. The characters were bland and generic. The story was bland and generic and felt like they mixed "Arthur and the Minimoys", "Antz" and "Ferngully" together, then filtered until nothing interesting was left. The humor didn't work either. As silly as the talking snowman in "Frozen" may look, he actually did work as a comic relief. His actions were funny, his words were funny and he complemented the heroes of the movie well. In "Epic", a snail and a slug served the very same purpose, only they were annoying as h***. Think Jar Jar Bing annoying and worse. The only thing that works in "Epic" are its visuals. If I just wanted to look at pretty pictures, both "Frozen" and "Epic" would be equally beautiful. The problem is that a movie is more than pretty pictures. A movie is entertainment and needs to entertain. While "Frozen" was much better than I expected, "Epic" was much worse.

Fido is by no means a bad film, but it has a few basic problems that make it hard to me to give it a rating higher than 6. - One problem is that this film doesn't fit in any genre. While for this works to the advantage of some films as it makes them unique, it is a disadvantage for "Fido". The concept is too goofy to be considered a serious movie, the humor is too mild to generate actual laughter (at least in my case) and the gore is too mild and the whole "Pleasantville" setting is too bright and shiny to appeal to zombie movie fans while the gore and zombies themselves will upset many art house film fans. etc. Basically, the film deviates too far from any genre it is inspired by and it's not good enough in either of its deviations for this to actually work in its advantage. - As a satire of suburban sensibilities and the way people treat creatures of a different species, ethnic group or class, Fido never really succeeds in making a point. Unlike satires like "How to Get Rid of the Others", "Idiocracy" or "Dr Stranglove" the message is too subtle to really have an impact on the viewer and many people probably won't even understand what message this film actually holds. - Being too shallow for a satire and not goofy enough for a story a la "Monty Python", "Brain dead", "Shaun of the Dead" or "Hot Fuzz" the humor in Fido never really worked for me and considering this is supposed to be a funny movie that's a major drawback. So why does it still deserve a 6? The visuals are more than decent and the concept is one of the most original concepts I've seen in a film for quite a while. That made it still a film far more worth watching than any Michael Bay crap. It's just too bad they didn't get more out of the concept than they did.

Magnolia, Mr Nobody, Cashback, Land of the Blind, Eden Log, Watchmen, Requiem For A Dream and Black Snake Moan are some of the movies that made the greatest impression on me until quite recently. Revolver blew them all away. Revolver is beyond without comparison the deepest movie I've ever seen. It is all about exploring what Freud called the "id" aka the reptilian brain aka instinct. It explores the nature of fear, pain, rage, compassion and trust and teaches us how important it is to allow the right aspects of your "id" to dominate your self to find inner balance and happiness. Unfortunately Ritchie goes way over most people's heads with that message, which is why it doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. I know it's a cliché and I'm going to get butchered for this, but those who call this movie a pretentious mess are either not intelligent enough to get it or not mature enough to understand the depth and beauty of it. Technically, this movie was perfect as well. The pacing perfectly accompanied the message of the movie as it gradually unfolded. Repeating themes help the viewer organize his thoughts as the message gets clearer and our understanding of the meaning of these themes becomes richer and more powerful. While not as rich as Mr Nobody or Cashback from a purely audiovisual perspective, the audiovisual appeal was nevertheless very strong and formed a perfect whole with the message and pacing. Casting and acting were no less excellent. Each character perfectly filled the role they played. No one felt out of place and Statham was a much better actor than I ever thought he could be. This is a movie you should see at least twice. Once you really "get" the story, a second viewing makes it a whole new experience that's no less worth watching. But that's only if you get it. Most people just don't get it and won't ever get it...

Although not accurate all the way, this film is one of the more realistic action thrillers I've seen. It's one of the few films where the main character actually spends a lot of time taking care of just two gun shot wounds (without vital organs being hit), one of the few films that puts governmental corruption in a more or less correct perspective, one of the few films where the lone hero needs a sidekick to help him with the planning, etc. On top of that, the film is entertaining from beginning to end and character motives are believable. But then again.... this film is not for everyone. Left wing supporters are likely to be offended by its pro-gun message. American right wing supporters are likely to be offended by the strong anti-US government viewpoints clearly expressed in this film. Pro-constitution anti-federal government paleoconservatives and right wingers outside of the US without an in depth knowledge of sniper rifles are probably the only ones to enjoy this film to the fullest. And boy oh boy, how little are they in number... which probably explains why this film did not become the blockbuster hit it could have been.

After looking forward to seeing both "Epic" by Blue Sky Studios and "Frozen" by Disney, I saw both of them this weekend. The main character of "Epic" looks like a twin of the main character of "Frozen". Also, one movie deals with cold vs warm and the other deals with decay vs growth. Finally, both movies rely a lot on beautiful nature shots. For these reasons, I felt I should review both together. "Frozen" was much better than I expected. Frozen reminded me a lot of traditional Disney classics like Snow White, Dumbo or Bambi. Yes there was singing, but the singing was surprisingly traditional without sounding corny and outdated. Unlike in most cartoons that involve singing, in "Frozen" it enhanced the experience rather than being a turn-off. "Frozen" also had a rather well-developed story. It wasn't a traditional good-vs-evil story where the good were perfect and the bad haven't got a single redeeming quality. It also wasn't yet another generic "we must remain ourselves and fight tradition" story like Mulan, Brave and so many others out there. The characters felt more real than I'm used to in a Disney flick and combined with some humor that actually works, that makes "Frozen" one of the most entertaining animations I've seen in a long time. "Epic" was an "epic failure" in all of these area. The characters were bland and generic. The story was bland and generic and felt like they mixed "Arthur and the Minimoys", "Antz" and "Ferngully" together, then filtered until nothing interesting was left. The humor didn't work either. As silly as the talking snowman in "Frozen" may look, he actually did work as a comic relief. His actions were funny, his words were funny and he complemented the heroes of the movie well. In "Epic", a snail and a slug served the very same purpose, only they were annoying as h***. Think Jar Jar Bing annoying and worse. The only thing that works in "Epic" are its visuals. If I just wanted to look at pretty pictures, both "Frozen" and "Epic" would be equally beautiful. The problem is that a movie is more than pretty pictures. A movie is entertainment and needs to entertain. While "Frozen" was much better than I expected, "Epic" was much worse.

Little Miss Sunshine seems to be a film with very polarized opinion considering most people seem to either love it or hate it. Well, I belong to that small remaining category of people who appreciated this film but expected more out of it. The film has an interesting message and once they arrive in California this message is worked out really well, however the road trip it takes to get there isn't as interesting as I expected. The events that occur aren't that compelling nor are they that funny, making an actual road trip far more interesting than watching this family doing theirs. I believe it's a missed opportunity here, although I nevertheless think the ending saves this film from being forgettable. With a different ending, I would probably have rated it a 6 at most.

Even though the story line is incredibly thin, Anderson still managed to leave open a number of plot holes. Copying from 1975 the film "Death Race 2000" and the 1987 Schwarzenegger film "The Running Man" as well as computer games like "Carmageddon" or "Destruction Derby", Anderson's "Death Race" has little new to offer besides some 21st century special effects. The only ones who can really look forward to something new and refreshing are fans of Tangerine Dream's Paul Haslinger. Haslinger's soundtrack adds a grim industrial feeling to the film, making the brainless movie bits a bit easier to swallow. Still, the film consists of little more than monotonous car chases with lots of bullets and explosions added to them. If you're interested in a dumb and unoriginal action film filled with plot holes, then "Death Race" might be your thing. Otherwise, watch out you don't fall asleep.....

"Citade de Deus" ("City of God") was a Brazilian masterpiece telling the story about the gang wars in the Brazilian favelas (slums) during the '70s from the perspective of a boy who wants to become a journalist. Based on a true story, it gives you a quite realistic impression of what it was like to live back then in one of the most dangerous places on earth. After the success of "Citade de Deus", Kátia Lund and Fernando Meirelles, (the directors) created a series called "Cidade dos Homens" ("City of God") based on the same concept taking place in the present which in 2007 was turned into another feature length film with the same title. As I haven't seen the series I cannot judge it, but the film "Cidade dos Homens" was not nearly as good as the first. Telling the story of two friends growing up in the Rio favelas, the film starts out real slow and never manages to become nearly as compelling as "Citade de Deus" was. Certainly, the fighting between the two rivaling gangs is exciting to watch but this only but a small part of the film and the rest of it consists of little more than the two friends trying to survive and maintain their friendship. There is little depth in any of the other characters and this makes the film fairly pointless to watch for anyone who's already seen "Citade de Deus". While not a bad film by any standards, but it's by no means better than mediocre either. I expected more from the people who brought us "Citade de Deus". Was this a cheap attempt to get some easy money?!?

I haven't seen the film "Mirrors" is supposed to be based on, but the end result is simply awful. The plot lacks any consistency whatsoever. It's literally just one plot device after the other, making the film entirely pointless and boring to watch. Most of the ideas seem to come from a bunch of 15-year-olds smoking pot at their parent' attic and trying to come up with something similar to "Poltergeist" or "The Ring" but failing at it in every possible way. I rarely felt so ripped off as I felt after watching "Mirrors". If you like to see a film that tries to include all the clichés of famous horror films and fails miserably, try "Mirrors". Otherwise, try a better film.

With "Revolver", Ritchie made one of the most intellectually profound movies ever. Unfortunately, this seemed to alienate most of his fans (who like him for his action comedies), making his best movie also his most despised movie. With "RocknRolla", Ritchie returns to his roots. The problem with that is that this movie is not as fast-paced as it needed be, not as funny as it should be, nor as innovative as it could be and therewith totally felt lacking of anything worth grabbing my attention. After being copied over and over by various directors during the early '00s, the style that made Ritchie famous gradually became repetitive and dull. While "Revolver" offered a whole new dimension to the genre by replacing most of the humor with philosophy and symbolism, "RocknRolla" felt like a rather soulless attempt in the exact opposite direction. It felt uninspired and rehashed, leaving me constantly longing for more. The only thing this movie adds to his older work is a bit of fan service to his gay audience, which by no means added anything of value to the average straight guy. Watching this movie and his later Sherlock Holmes movies, I'd say Ritchie sold his soul to commercialism and gave up trying to be an artist.

After reading dozens of reviews of Uwe Boll films, I was pretty uncertain if I ever wanted to watch a film of his. This guy's films seem to be so bad and his attitude seems to childish that you simply don't want to have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with him. Nevertheless, "Postal" got many remarkably positive reviews and I found the trailer quite interesting so I decided to give this film a chance. I expected some lowbrow American over-the-top junk like "American Pie" or "Hot Shots", but this film actually turned out to be far, far superior to those. Offending women, Muslems, Jews, ****, Christians and pretty much anyone else who has an opinion with his ****-off attitude, Uwe Boll manages to bring over-the-top humor to a level never witnessed before. While the humor varies from highly questionable tot utterly hilarious, the lesser jokes are easily ignored due to the film's fast pacing and solid editing. Also, we find a criticism of American society that goes way beyond anything major Hollywood studios would dare to publish.... and while extremely cynical, it is entirely to the point. As a comedy, I found nothing to dislike about this film. I would have given it a 10, but the toilet humor level of some of the jokes force me to take one step back and give it a 9. Nevertheless, I can highly recommend this comedy for anyone who doesn't get offended too easily.... If Boll's other films are really that bad, I suggest he sticks with comedy.

With Jim Henson's name attached to it, I was very curious to see "Mirrormask". After having seen it, I was very disappointment. While the Tim-Burtonesque scenery was very original, the sub-par (for 2005) CGI made it look like a mediocre computer game which took away much of the magic this film could have had. Stop motion or the typical Henson style puppets could have saved this film, however for some reason (budget?) they did not pick that option. Besides that, the main character had little personality and her behavior was not believable for someone trapped in a surreal nightmarish dream world. The plot wasn't really compelling either and the ending was just lame. Besides that, for most of the film I was wondering how long it would take until it's over and that's usually not a good sign. "Nightmare Before Christmas" was a wonderful surreal and dark little story that captivated the hearts of many viewers and "Mirrormask" tries to be something similar but unfortunately it failed at many levels.

Audiovisually, the movie reminded me of Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire", Tarsem Singh's "The Fall", Sean Ellis's "Cashback", Vincenzo Natali's "Cypher" and even Alex Proyas's "Dark City". The use of colors, music, camera angles and other audiovisual aspects are amazing, innovative and harmonious to say the least. Emotionally, I can't think of a movie to have touched me since Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia" and Craig Brewer's "Black Snake Moan"... yet it remains fairly lighthearted most of the time. Storywise, this movie takes elements from those same movies and mixes it with the parallel storytelling of Peter Howitt's "Sliding Doors". The themes are diverse, compelling, deep and imaginative. All these elements combined leads to a wonderfully confusing surreal movie that feels warm and touching, inspiring and nostalgic. The only problem I have with the movie is that it's a bit too confusing in some areas and that it tries to take on so many different themes it seems a bit too much for a single movie... but I can't deduct more than a single point from a maximum rating because IMO everything else about this movie is simply perfect.... This movie should have gotten numerous awards.....

As a child and teenager, I grew up with the "Star Trek: The Next Generation". While I was never a hardcore Star Trek fan, I did enjoy quite a few seasons of that series as well as "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine". Still, the original series never really appealed to me. They always came off as outdated in so many ways I guess I outgrew them before I had the chance to get into them. "Star Trek: The Future Begins" didn't really manage to impress me, largely because it's basically nothing but barely disguised "fan service" for the fans of the original series stretched in a thin two hour plot. That plot evolves around two heroes : Spock and James T. Kirk. After a couple of scenes depicting their childhood, both meet each other as Starfleet cadets during a pretty contrived conflict and end up in a couple more conflicts until they realize they need to overcome their differences and collaborate to save the future of the earth. That pretty much sums up the whole plot. Several supporting characters from the original series are also included in the movie, although they're given so little screen time and character development you barely get to know them at all. All the attention goes to Spock and James T. Kirk, and even these characters are barely developed beyond caricatures. The main protagonist of the story has been given a back story not just very thin but so far-fetched and random he felt more like an afterthought than an integral plot of the movie. While the visual effects were as professional as one would expect of a movie with this budget, I also wasn't impressed by the movie when I tried to forget about all the plot holes and just tried looking at pretty pictures. Too much shaky cam, a ridiculous amount of annoying lens flares, awkward close-ups and an ADHD pacing gave the movie not nearly the amount of eye-candy I most definitely did expect of a movie like this, leaving me mostly disappointed by the time the credits passed the screen. I did very much appreciate the movie's sense of humor, though, but jokes were too few and too far in between to be a redeeming factor.

Half-naked woman posing for a camera, bloody torture scene, naked woman posing for a camera, bloody torture scene, **** scene, car driving through vegas, naked woman posing, bloody torture scene, **** scene, half-naked woman posing for a camera, bloody torture scene, ... Combine this with a few incredibly poor dialogues, a few random references to the main character's obsession with **** and the most primitive form of mysogenism and you pretty much get a summary of this film. Not only is this film too repetitive and totally lacking a story, it is even too meak for a real gore film (gallons of blood and a few cut-off heads are pretty much as much gore as you'll see). The only ones who could possibly like this film is those who expect nothing more than naked women, gallons of blood and a cute pre-pubescent teenage girl trying to act... especially if they have a thing for '70s "evil ****" stereotypes. Unless you belong to the latter category, don't waste your time on this piece of junk...

I wasn't really sure what to expect from "Team America" since it said "by the makers of South Park" at the cover of the DVD box and I'm not exactly a "South Park" fan, so I feared for the worst. I was pleasantly surprised it turned out to be a refreshingly original combination of satire and a bit less "civilised" humor. The idea of using puppets works great with this concept and it left space for a lot of original visual humor and made the spoof songs feel less forced then it would have been with real actors. Although not all the jokes worked out for me for various reasons, this is one of the few movies I've seen the last few years that actually made me laugh out loud. So would I recommend this film? F*** yeah! Watch it with some friends and you'll have a h*** **** time.

"Shortbus" is an interesting perspective on the loose sexual morals of the hip New York underground scene and shows us how these people apparently soothe their insecurities with lots of promiscuous sex, but I found it too distant from my own way of life, too shallow and too one-sided to really appeal to me. I liked the way it explored human weakness and the insecurities of the various characters felt all quite genuine, which is quite refreshing in an age where shallow pulp blockbusters make the majority of films available. However, the film didn't really go being that, it lacked balance in every possible way and wasn't nearly the genius art house film it tried to be, which left somewhat of a bitter aftertaste. Even though one can see people talking about their private lives a lot, the character development still felt rushed. We get to understand people's insecurities regarding relationships and sexuality, but that's pretty much all we learn about them which makes it hard to really empathize with the characters. Also, besides the sex and relationship talk all we really get to see is people being naked and/or having sex, which gets quite monotonous near the end of the film and is too much in contrast with the emotional side of the rest of the film. While we do get to see things from a lesbian perspective, a straight perspective and a gay male perspective, the gay male perspective is way too over-lighted and the lesbian side is only really touched in one scene. The heterosexual male's perspective is very under-lighted as well and even the heterosexual female's perspective does not get the amount of attention it should have gotten in spite of a straight female main character. Similarly, the director shows us quite a lot gay males having sex, whereas the straight sex is very limited and very mild in comparison and there is no lesbian sex at all. Female genitals are not really shown, whereas male genitals are all over the place. Now, I have no problem with homosexual directors and them making a film from their own perspectives but he could have either made this a pure gay film ("Queer as Folk" style) or he could have given the heterosexual and lesbian side more screen time. This unbalanced mixture feels very awkward. While the style of this film was most definitely refreshing and far from bad, it by no means comes close to the genius of Michel Gondry ("Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Human Nature", "The Science of Sleep") or Sean Ellis ("Cashback") who also explored human sexuality and relationships in their films (although from a straight, generally male perspective). "Shortbus" didn't even come close to being as charming as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", as silly as "Human Nature" or as intense as "Cashback". Unlike the other films mentioned, "Shortbus" seemed to be more about sex than about love. Also unlike the other films mentioned, the audiovisual style of "Shortbus" felt not very innovative or unique after having seen quite a few art house films in my life. This made it come off as a bit pretentious. If you're a homosexual male in conflict with your emotions, you may really like this film and consider it a very heartwarming experience, but for anyone else I'd recommend you go watch and of the other films I mentioned if you want to see an art house film about sex and relationships that's refreshing and different from anything you've seen before.

After seeing "Shallow Grave", "Trainspotting", "The Beach" and "28 Days Later..." I was curious to see the latest film by Danny Boyle since it was praised by regular movie fans and critics alike. I wasn't quite fond of "The Beach", but the other 3 Danny Boyle films I'd seen were all incredibly original, compelling and in some way disturbing. I didn't have any idea what to expect of "Slumdog Millionaire" except that it was about a slum dog who became a millionaire on a TV game show and that's not really much. But man, it blew me away. The soundtrack was simply amazing and due to its mixture of Indian and Western influence I'm sure it sounds somewhat exotic to anyone listening it regardless of cultural origin. Boyle's smooth editing, excellent sense for soundtrack and cynical world view make this disturbing film a rare gem among anything coming out on film these days. If you asked me to describe "Slumdog Millionaire" in one sentence, I would say it's a mixture of "Citade de Deus" (Eng: City of God) and a classic romance story, but that would not do this film any justice. Mr Boyle, it seems you pulled another "Trainspotting" on us viewers. I didn't know you still had it in you.

The problem with "Silent Hill" is that it lacks balance. Some parts of the film are over-explained while others leave you in a constant "What the f***". Some parts are just too creepy and shocking, while others get a little boring. Some parts are taken right out of the film, while others seemed added for no good reason. Some acting is very good, while other is very questionable. This lack of balance is enough to make many people disinterested in the film. Either they think it's too confusing, too gory, too different from the game, too slow, etc. Although IMO his "Brotherhood of the Wolf" was most definitely a better film, Gans definitely managed to provide something the Silver Screen hasn't seen in a long time : a dark and genuinely creepy Gothic environment with a Clive Barker sense of aesthetics. Too bad the "darkness" had only so little presence in this film, although I guess they had to make it fairly short to make it even remotely possible to survive in there. In spite of its many flaws, however, I can say I really loved seeing "Silent Hill". It's definitely refreshing after seeing all those cliché American horror films or typical Japanese gore.

Cashback is probably the first romantic film ever intended for a predominantly male rather than female audience. Unlike pretty much every other romantic film, this film looks at love, sex and relationships from a male perspective rather than the usually corny and uninteresting (for males anyway) female perspective. As a heterosexual male, I must say I really enjoyed this film because it gives a very recognisable view of the male psyche and the different kind of feelings males experience in male-female relationships, varying from superficial attraction to deep passion and love. I'd recommend it to every heterosexual male :-)

Robbie Collin of The Telegraph gave the film four stars out of five, stating, "It's a smart inversion of Cronenberg's 1999 film eXistenZ: rather than being umbilically connected to a virtual world, Packer is hermetically sealed off from the real one." "Cosmopolis" is a movie about what it feels to be disconnected from the "real world". It's a movie about the nihilism, despair and boredom of those who're without a meaningful goal or purpose on their lives. This movie isn't for everyone, though. The less you can relate to the disconnect of the movie, the more this movie will leave you disconnected as well. One thing is almost guaranteed, though: this movie will make an impression. "Cosmopolis" is one of those movies people tend to either passionately love or passionately hate. It's one of these movies that either resonate throughout throughout your soul or fail to reach you at all. If you like Cronenberg's movies, definitely check it out.