Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Á köldum klaka (1995)
Underrated, timeless
In the last twenty years or so, since I have seen the film first on television, I have only become ever fonder of this timeless masterwork which I now have on a DVD bought in Iceland. It manages to be hilarious and deeply moving at the same time. The cinematography is outstanding, the music fitting and beautiful. I don't really understand why it's not better known internationally, and why the average user rating here is so mediocre. Well, it's not an action-filled blockbuster for sure. What it is: a superbly well-paced road movie with low key glimpses of the supernatural, touching questions of familial bonds - and all this as a kind of comedy.
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
Old-fashioned entertainment
When I saw this film, I thought "Well, that's a surprisingly old-fashioned, lighthearted heist movie! It doesn't really have a 2001 feel to it, reminds me a lot of classical sixties movies, how quaint!" As it turns out, my feeling that this could have come straight from the 1960s was right - now I know that it is in fact a remake of a 1960 movie. And there's nothing wrong with it. It is entertaining enough, very slick, with well-known actors who seem to have fun, but of course also rather shallow and predictable. Even most of the "surprises" are rather unsurprising to viewers who know the kind of calculated plot twists typical for such movies. Therefore I don't quite get the high praise received by "Ocean's Eleven" as some kind of outstanding and most original movie; these are not its qualities. So I think that the current user consensus with a 7,7 rating here is fitting and give it an 8/10 for what it is, a well-polished heist comedy without any particular depth to it.
El Camino (2019)
Fine sequel, but not more
This works well as a sequel to Breaking Bad, and if you (like me) have seen the series, I think you will appreciate it. Quite enthralling; the two hours of its duration felt shorter. But on the other hand, I think it works *only* in connection with Breaking Bad. Viewers who are not familiar with the series might find it confusing, I suppose, and the many flashbacks can't really cover up the fact that the story of this movie, in itself, is rather thin. But I *do* recommend it for Breaking Bad fans and because of Aaron Paul's convincing acting skills.
Hail, Caesar! (2016)
Too episodic
I usually like the work of the Coen Brothers, and I quite like this movie, too. But it's somewhat lacking in coherence, it's too episodic. Some wonderful and funny episodes, but a thin story. The main character isn't that interesting. And it ends rather abruptly, somewhat unsatisfying in my opinion.
Sherlock: A Study in Pink (2010)
Quite great
This first episode is quite great, as it transports the characters convincingly into our time, in a seemingly effortless way. It would have been easy (and common) to portray Dr. Watson and Inspector Lestrade as ridiculous buffoons; instead, they're intelligent, normal beings, just as Doyle wrote them - we can even sympathise with poor, overwrought Lestrade (and his colleagues). I appreciate that. It's also interesting that the episode, in a way, deconstructs the "Holmes myth". Yes, Holmes is shown as man of almost superhuman intelligence and powers of observation, but at the same time - he doesn't actually solve the case. In fact, he has only *almost* solved it when the murderer shows up to present himself to Holmes. That's unusual and I think I like it, too, as a refreshing approach (but I do hope that Holmes will appear in his "real" case-solving capacity in other episodes; this is the only one I've seen so far).
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
This is Star Trek
In truth, it's not really possible to review this new show seriously after the first two episodes. This can only be a first impression. Who knows into what direction "Star Trek: Discovery" will head later on? But, judging by episodes 1+2 only, I'd say: Yes, this is Star Trek. And I say this as a long-time Star Trek fan - maybe not a real "Trekkie" anymore, though I do own a TNG uniform bought in the 90's, and a photo where I sit between John de Lancie and James Doohan :-). I was very, very sceptical about Discovery, based upon the rumors and early negative comments e.g. about the "new" Klingons. But now I think: The Star Trek spirit is there. Even the Klingons aren't as bad as I feared. Surely, their new appearance was unnecessary and any attempt to embed it in "lore" would have to be even more contrived than ENT's explanation of the TOS Klingons' smooth foreheads... another temporary mutation of the augment virus or what? Oh, I have an idea: To appear more intimidating, the smooth-foreheaded Klingons are now universally using personal hologram fields hiding their true appearance! Yes, that's it! There's always an explanation! ;-).
But, after all, outward appearances isn't what Star Trek is about. Let them design the Klingons as they want, as long as the Klingon culture remains intact. And I think the show really tries - successfully - to depict the Klingon culture as it was developed in earlier series, and to build upon it. I see a good chance that they will not just be depicted as one-dimensional antagonists (as they originally were, remember TOS!); although they certainly start as the "bad guys" here, there are also glimpses of some rather noble aspects of their culture, and a less-than-noble idea by a Federation captain to use them: The Klingons are honoring their dead, pulling the corpses of their fallen warriors on board, so let's embed a bomb into a corpse! (Granted, it was depicted as a desperate last-resort idea after the Federation ship has taken heavy damage). That the Klingons speak "real" Klingon among themselves will be welcomed by most fans, I think. Apparently the Klingon was checked by Klingon language experts and should be fine.
Also, the Federation spirit and basic stances come through clearly enough, even though a bit ham-fisted in parts (the scene with the wounded ensign: "We're Starfleet. We're explorers, not soldiers"). I'm not even heavily opposed to the intro music, although I would have wished for a more memorable tune and better music in general. On the other hand, I had to (approvingly) smile at the sound effects; I don't know whether they took the original bleeping and buzzing sounds from TOS for the bridge, but it surely sounds a lot like it. It's a trifle, but an endearing trifle, I'd say. All in all: I look forward to the next episodes with optimism. This could become a really good show. It could also become a very poor show. Look at the first episodes of TNG, DS9, or ENT, and compare them to the later series of these Star Trek shows - there were enormous changes. In these three cases, mainly to the better. A lot can happen to the show, still a lot can change. In my opinion, the start is promising.
Better Call Saul (2015)
Slow, contains good dialogues
This review is based on the first five episodes of the first season only. I intend to continue watching the show, so - yes, I like it. But it's not for the impatient. Very different from "Breaking Bad", very slow. The story elements of these first five episodes could have easily fit in two. Often, nothing of particular importance seems to happen. Even then, I like Bob Odenkirk's acting. And there is a scene in the second episode, "Mijo", which I particularly enjoyed - Jimmy McGill (who will later become "Saul Goodman") negotiating the fate of his hapless skateboarder associates, managing to reduce crazy Tuco Salamanca's "sentence" for the twins from all kinds of horrible mutilations and death to "just" a broken leg each - a kind of more grisly Marx Brothers dialogue, totally absurd and surreal (as, in truth, the whole skateboarder storyline). I think the series is at its best in such moments, embracing absurdity - another example being the stream of cranky clients for Jimmy later on. But I can't give it a very high rating. There are good ideas, there is good dialogue. And then - nothing happens. Nothing continues to happen. A little bit happens. Good dialogue again. Again, not happening a lot. And so on. I do understand the frustrated reviewers - but also those who like it. Very much a matter of taste. To repeat: Don't expect a "Breaking Bad" version 2.0.
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
Has the Star Trek spirit, but isn't very memorable
Note: I marked this review as containing spoilers, and just to make sure: If you haven't seen the movie and don't want to read about the "surprising" revelation of the main antagonist's identity, stop reading now. - Well, if you're, like me, a Star Trek fan who cares for the Star Trek spirit and message of the original series, then I think that you'll perceive Star Trek Beyond as an improvement over the first two "parallel timeline" movies. If you're not fundamentally opposed to the whole alternative reality concept of the new Star Trek movies, or to the new actors, then I think you might like this one even if you're not a fan of the two movies directed by J.J. Abrams. The basic message of overcoming conflict and strife, of a peaceful and united society that has means to defend itself, but doesn't need a military as such (Starfleet is, after all, conceived as a civilian organization) comes across very clearly.
The main antagonist is representing the "old", pre-Federation way. As it turns out, the alien-looking Krall is actually an embittered old Starfleet captain who was in the military prior to the formation of the Federation, prolonging his life and changing his appearance through technology found on the planet he stranded on. This captain was - and still is, in his new identity as Krall - an avid advocate of a "War is the father of all" philosophy, of progress through strife. Krall - Captain Edison - has never accepted making peace with humanity's former enemies, sees the Federation as an abomination, and also feels abandoned and betrayed, as no Federation help ever arrived at his crash site for a hundred years. So, he's hell-bent on destroying as much of the Federation as he can, with the glorious space city of Yorktown as his first target. Of course the Enterprise crew stops him. It's also not very surprising that the Enterprise, once again, gets destroyed spectacularly. And like in the parallel universe, they get a new Enterprise (NCC-1701-A), of course (though a bit earlier).
For fans, there are several nice touches and "quotes" such as the Enterprise passing under a bridge in Yorktown, which is reminding of an iconic scene in Star Trek IV (though there it's the Golden Gate Bridge, and a Klingon Bird of Prey). Yorktown itself is spectacular. A grand, bright space city, the embodiment of Star Trek's utopia. For the few minutes alone where we see this city, the camera flights through its structure, it's worth seeing the movie in 3D. Otherwise, "Star Trek Beyond" doesn't really benefit a lot from the 3D technology. There are a few good space scenes, views of the Enterprise, but there are also quite a lot of close-up action scenes where 3D doesn't work that well, in my opinion.
The parallel universe approach is further bolstered and used to pay homage to Leonard Nimoy, the actor who portrayed the original Spock and died in 2015. So, in this movie, young Spock is informed of the death of Ambassador Spock - his parallel self, who entered young Spock's universe as an old man from the parallel universe in the first new movie (good old mind-boggling time-travel SF stuff!). Also the whole original crew is seen on a photo from a box owned by Ambassador Spock. A fitting homage, I think (although it might slightly confuse viewers who haven't seen the previous films), as well as using the original series' famous introduction lines ("Space - the final frontier...") and music in the end credits.
Still, summing up I don't give "Star Trek Beyond" a very high rating. Why? It's likable enough. Charming. Well paced, and the actors have settled in, in a good way. But - it's not very memorable. In a way, it reminds me of "Star Trek: Insurrection" which was like a good Next Generation double episode on TV, but not really cinematic. I liked Insurrection - thanks to this movie, I could experience the Next Generation crew one last time in a well-crafted adventure (discounting the abysmal "Star Trek: Nemesis", which is in my opinion an action movie with Star Trek actors, but not really a Star Trek movie). But in cinema, I expect a bit more. Star Trek movies such as "The Voyage Home", "The Undiscovered Country", or "First Contact" have to offer this - fresh ideas, surprising moments. "Star Trek Beyond" has a certain lack of these.
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Solid, visually interesting
A solid Tarantino movie, in many ways typical for his style, but also remarkable for being mainly a chamber play: Tarantino puts eight characters of questionable background and honesty into a cabin where they're stuck as a blizzard rages on. Most of the movie takes place in that cabin, Minnie's Haberdashery. And there it's a bit like a mix of a Shakespearean play and... well, that may be a strange comparison, but yes, I'd say: an Agatha Christie mystery. Dame Agatha Christie would have been shocked by the violence and bloodiness, I suppose, but at the core, there are similar plot devices: Who's telling the truth? Who is who, actually? What really happened at the place earlier? The solution comes as an outburst of utter violence, as one expects from Tarantino. And it is quite surprising. Yes, there may be a plot hole presenting itself after the movie's conclusion (spoiler alert again!) - it doesn't seem to make much sense for the gang members not to kill the bounty hunters right away and to instead play their game of deception, which is dangerous (for themselves) and seems, ultimately, rather silly. On the other hand, the gangsters holed up in Minnie's Haberdashery might have been unsure what kind of "visitors" to expect, how many, and whether some amongst them might be aligned to their cause, so decided to proceed with caution.
Well, all this is filmed beautifully and nostalgically in Ultra Panavision 70, a process previously last used in 1966, and in the roadshow release, given an extra 1960s touch by including an overture and intermission music. I have seen the roadshow release and would recommend it. One shot especially impressed me on the very big screen: It's a view from inside a barn, the open barn's door forming a frame that looks a bit like a smaller cinema picture, and the dark inside surroundings barely visible - but still visible enough to create the impression that the viewer is actually inside that barn. Without any 3D technology, it creates a sudden and surprising feeling of immersion and of being there. As this shot's effectiveness heavily relies on the big screen, I'm not sure whether it's included in that form in the standard (digital) release which has, it's said, some different cuts as an adaptation to smaller screens. Also, I certainly wouldn't say that the ultra widescreen format is pointless just because most of the movie is set in a cabin - in fact, it shows that widescreen allows for interesting interior shots and isn't just for sweeping landscapes.
The Martian (2015)
Gripping near-future SF
This is a film that quite closely follows the book upon which it's based. Andy Weir's novel is a pretty straightforward thing: It tells an exciting, gripping story in plain prose, characterized by short sentences and an uncomplicated structure - the fanciest thing about it is the interweaving of chapters containing the stranded astronaut's logs and "meanwhile on Earth" chapters. The story progresses at a steady pace and the scientific background isn't bogging it down. Well, Ridley Scott's film does the same thing. The visuals are also nicely done, with convincing Mars landscapes and technology. It's a rather "realistic" kind of science fiction adventure, doing fine without too esoteric technology or visions (no aliens here, no wormholes, faster-than-light-travel or the like, and it's set not very far in the future). In fact, I *like* SF with aliens (including Scott's "Alien", of course!), but it's a refreshingly different approach. I saw the 3D version which uses 3D in a rather low-key manner and doesn't try to overwhelm you. So, it's enhancing immersion without being as obtrusive and dizzying as many other 3D movies.
Fortitude (2015)
Comment on the location - not a review
I haven't actually seen an episode of this series, so I'm not qualified to rate or to review it. Quite possibly it's a gripping thriller. But I have seen the trailer, read descriptions - and as I'm fond of the North and know a bit about these regions, I feel compelled to comment on the location. Fortitude is supposed to be set on Svalbard, also known as Spitsbergen, in the extreme north of our planet, far north of Norway's North Cape, and more than 1000 km north of the Arctic Circle. No trees grow on Svalbard - except some plants growing to a height of a few centimetres which are, I was told, technically considered trees. Still, we see trees in the trailer (in the background of the village, at 0:11). A snowy landscape, but "lush" for Svalbard standards, too lush. That's because the series wasn't filmed in Svalbard at all, I learned, but in Reyðarfjörður in Iceland - which is even a bit south of the Arctic Circle. And where, though it's certainly craggy and cool, modest patches of small trees do grow. The climate is completely different from Svalbard.
Well, I think - if you say that a series is set in Svalbard and show us polar bears, the landscape should *look* like Svalbard, too. Wait, it says here "Perched on the edge of the Arctic Circle" - yes, that would fit the location in Iceland. But that's even more confusing and inconsistent: On the one hand, talking about the Arctic Circle (far south of Svalbard), on the other hand the supposed location... it does irk me, I have to say.
Enterprise: In a Mirror, Darkly (2005)
Entertaining, mirror universe overdone though
Both parts of "In a Mirror, Darkly" are entertaining, well paced, and of course it's a joy for Star Trek fans to learn what happened to the "Defiant" from Kirk's era. Most actors are doing a good job at portraying the corrupted, evil counterparts of their characters - especially John Billinglsey (Dr. Phlox), I think. Also, the music is decidedly more interesting than the usual Enterprise fare. However, the whole "evil mirror universe" thing is extremely overdone: In a society that permeated by universal mistrust, treachery and series of usurpations, where any kind of teamwork is overshadowed by force and fear of backstabbing, I can't really envision people being able to get a spaceship into orbit, even less building an empire that lasts for hundreds of years.
The Zero Theorem (2013)
Memorable non-masterpiece
No, this certainly isn't Gilliam's new masterpiece. That remains "Brazil" - still towering above all Gilliam films, impressive as many of them are, and towering above most films by most directors of the later 20th century. "The Zero Theorem" doesn't quite drag the viewer in as irresistibly. I can't fault the actors, but still I found Jonathan Pryce's main character of Sam Lowry in "Brazil" more convincing than Qohen Leth, portrayed by Christoph Waltz. Certainly, Leth's opaqueness is an important part of the story, but in connection with the chamber play feeling of the whole movie, it has led to a somewhat... well, how to put it... disengaged viewing experience for me. Yes, a chamber play feeling... and an entirely intended one? The limited budget may be showing. Everything looks still very Gilliamesque, though, and the images are memorable. Also, I think the film delivers an interesting, though bleak message that's good food for lengthy philosophical discussion. Well, *I* think it's bleak. Others may interpret it differently, there's room for that. One of Gilliam's more cryptic recent films.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
Entertaining, though there's something missing...
As a whole, Jackson's "Hobbit" trilogy suffers from over-stretching: From a book of 271 pages, you just can't create a three-part movie saga of a similar length as "Lord of the Rings" without quite a lot of stretching. Jackson does this with drawn-out battle sequences and adding some plot elements entirely of his (and the other scriptwriters') making. As a person who first read "The Hobbit" in childhood and is still very fond of the book, I think the first part of Jackson's version nonetheless is a beautiful adaptation, reasonably close to the book and well paced. I have criticized the second part, "The Desolation of Smaug", for going too far in its story-stretching approach. To some extent, that can be said of this third part as well. Still, I think it's better able to keep the viewer's attention and it has some astonishing visuals (as well as some that look rather like they belong into a video game...). The acting is fine, Howard Shore's music fitting as usual.
Yet: I wonder why Jackson, with all this need to fill a long film with content, left out an important scene from the book: After all, the Arkenstone story line is pretty central, isn't it? Thorin's yearning for the Arkenstone, treasuring it above everything else, and Bilbo's attempt to use it as a means of reconciliation. In the book, Thorin fittingly is buried with his Arkenstone - and Orcrist, the sword the Elves had taken from him. In the movie, not only is Thorin's burial left out completely (we just get a short scene of the dwarfs mourning at the dead body), but the viewer is also left to wonder what became of the Arkenstone. It's as if everyone has completely forgotten the wondrous gem at the end. I think that must seem strange even to those who haven't read Tolkien's book: Making much ado about that gem, only to never mention it again after the battle? I can only assume (or hope) that an extended edition of the movie will probably contain Thorin's burial, thus giving the story a better rounding. Also, some elements aren't used to their full potential, most notably the "were-worms"... they appear to be quite a threat, but after a few seconds of screen time, we never see them or hear of them again. Having said all that, I think it's an entertaining movie and I even give it a star more than the preceding one...
Snowpiercer (2013)
Original, flawed, entertaining
Major spoilers ahead, you've been warned. - Yes, this movie has some glaring flaws in its logic, and some things remain unexplained. Indeed: The train's track would need maintenance - if the passengers are all what is left of humanity and the train never stops for maintenance work, sections of the track should have quickly become impassable. The engine remains a mystery. The whole biological cycle / ecosystem of the train is implausible: As others have noted, where does the massive amount of cockroaches used for producing the protein bars come from? Well, there might be a car with a big cockroach breeding facility in the train, but then, these would also need nutrition, and where does *that* come from? As well as nutrition for all the fish, chicken etc. we see in the first class cars... the allegedly self-sufficient system of the train doesn't seem really viable.
Other often criticized things I see as less of a problem: Yes, it doesn't seem logical to create Wilford's "Ark" in the form of a train instead of something stationary (would also be more energy-efficient), but it doesn't *need* to be logical: After all, Wilford is depicted as some rather nutty zillionaire who just happens to like trains very much, so it's thinkable that he simply *wanted* to use this train, despite more sensible possibilities. There's nothing particularly implausible with the ending. It is puzzling and one might wonder what the director is trying to say, but we can simply accept it as it is: The train wrecked, the girl and the boy alive, and the last thing they see is a polar bear. So, maybe they get eaten by the bear soon. Or there are more survivors in the train (quite possible) and the next thing that happens is that one of them shoots the bear, and a group of survivors manages to create the start of a new society by building igloos etc. in a thawing world - after all, that's something also explicitly stated in the movie: the snow is gradually melting, the world already becoming warmer again. It's a very open end that could even leave room for a sequel. But maybe it's really just meant as an ending of dark irony, along the lines of "that's the end of humanity, and the temporary survival of these two means nothing, see the polar bear?" We don't know, and that's fine for me.
Also, despite all its flaws, this is at least an original and entertaining movie with interesting visuals that never gets boring (well, almost never - it's a bit slow in the beginning). It's a different setting, and the actors are doing a decent job. There's also some odd, dry and dark humor in it, which I appreciate.
Some people have compared "Snowpiercer" to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", and maybe that's a surprisingly fitting comparison: Like "Metropolis", "Snowpiercer" has some really fascinating visuals. Like "Metropolis", it tries to transport messages on society in a heavy-handed way. And like "Metropolis", it's not very logical and has a rather weak story. But it certainly will not attain the classic status of Lang's film.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Entertaining, but stretching choices not always convincing
I'm writing this as a Tolkien reader who was, on the whole, very happy with Jackson's adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings". LotR is a voluminous and complex work that calls for an epic adaptation of considerable length - which Jackson delivered. It wouldn't be a good idea trying to compress the plot of LotR into a single movie of two or three hours, and so the "trilogy" approach worked fine. Now, "The Hobbit" is a different case. A much shorter, simpler book, lighter in tone and meant for children - though some would say that it's still a rather dark example of a children's book, containing elements of tragedy. Jackson is making this book into a film trilogy of approximately the same length as "Lord of the Rings" - of course this isn't possible without stretching the story considerably and adding new material not found in the book. In the first part of Jacksons' "The Hobbit", I found this stretching approach not bothering. The slow pace at which the story unfolded allowed for fine renditions of famous and beloved scenes such as the arrival of the Dwarfs at the home of poor, bewildered Bilbo, or his encounter with Gollum. I'm also fine with the expansion of the role of Radagast (who is merely mentioned in passing in the book) which makes sense to me.
But now, in the second part, I think the stretching partly goes too far, and it's not always stretched where most fitting. For example, I would have liked to see the company wander longer in Mirkwood before the troubles with the spiders start. Tolkien lets them travel in the forest for many days, probably weeks - their provisions running low, they get hungry and quite desperate. There's also a scene not in the movie which would have fitted well, Bombur falling into an enchanted stream and afterwards having to be carried for a while in constant slumber... In the movie, Mirkwood is over too quickly. It's as if they go into the forest, are lost for a short time, but quickly get ambushed by the spiders and then captured by the elves. The oppressiveness and gloom of Mirkwood isn't really developed. Which is a shame, as there's so much time... On the other hand, the movie is spending quite some time on a completely new character, a female wood elf called Tauriel, which, given the almost entire lack of female characters in Tolkien's book, is understandable, but still doesn't blend very well with the story. Also, the attempt of creating a stronger connection to "The Lord of the Rings" by showing the identity and growing strength of the "Necromancer" in Dol Guldur in a rather blunt way is understandable, but in my opinion it could have been done a bit more restrainedly. - However, this is an entertaining movie, and the actors are splendid. Martin Freeman's Bilbo is much more interesting and complex than Elijah Wood's Frodo was, Ian McKellen still a superb Gandalf, Richard Armitage's Thorin is charismatic, and all the other dwarfs are well chosen. Smaug is, I daresay, perfect. Although, speaking of Smaug - this movie ends very abruptly with Smaug flying towards Laketown. Whilst the first part ends naturally in a moment of respite, this one feels more like cut off in the middle than a cliffhanger. I think here the decision of making three instead of two parts is showing after all.
Welt am Draht (1973)
Frozen world on a wire
This movie, made for TV in 1973 and consisting of two parts with a total length of more than three hours, certainly can seem a bit slow-going at times. However, there's so much internal tension in the slowly unfolding story that at the end, it doesn't feel too long or drawn-out at all. This is also thanks to the splendid performance by Klaus Löwitsch who convincingly plays the main character as a man who almost frantically tries to keep his guarded, restrained demeanour as his environment gets more and more puzzling and threatening. If we compare "World on a Wire" with the later adaptation "The Thirteenth Floor" which is based on the same book, the earlier film is a much more interesting experience - more layers, more depth, more interesting actors. Craig Bierko's interpretation of the main character in "The Thirteenth Floor" is not a tenth as interesting as Löwitsch's performance - I can't find the emotion in Bierko's "Douglas Hall" character, the self-doubt, the despair... it's all there in Löwitsch's "Fred Stiller". And "World on a Wire" isn't just a pioneering movie, it's also strangely timeless despite the prevalent seventies design. With the very clear, fine picture of the current DVD restoration it doesn't feel dated. It's a strange, half frozen world seemingly not entirely connected to reality - which of course fits the theme very well.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Mesmerizing opening sequence
Is this the best part of the series? I'm not sure, but in any case its beginning is, in my opinion, the best sequence to be found in all "Indiana Jones" movies. These first 20 minutes or so, from the Shanghai club to the plane crash, are pure music in moving pictures - they feel like one elegant, smooth motion. There are more spectacular parts in this and the other Indy movies, but this sequence of events shines with a perfect, mesmerizing pace. It's all quite nonsensical; Indiana Jones movies certainly never will be lauded for intellectual subtlety and depth, but they are still very good entertainment - and especially the first 20 minutes of "Temple of Doom" in their unstoppable forward motion.
Oblivion (2013)
Visually appealing, but slow and unoriginal
Unlike some other reviewers, I'm not of the opinion that this movie has major flaws in its logic. However, the simple and thoroughly unoriginal story is told in a long-winded, very slow manner and the acting is rather bland. The majority of the landscape we see in "Oblivion" is in Iceland (and it's worth seeing in its cragged, somber beauty), so if you recognize it, it might be irritating that it is supposed to represent devastated New York. Technically it's an impressive work. The footage of Icelandic landscape with its natural gorges is blended seamlessly into CGI ruins and cityscape crevasses, and the clean, smooth "2001"-ish structures of the repairmen's bases are a feast for the eyes. But as the technical merits of "Oblivion" alone can't create a satisfying cinema experience, we're left with another pretty standard, slightly dull though good-looking sci-fi action flick.
Hellzapoppin' (1941)
One of the funniest movies ever
The first minutes of this movie are the best part: a wildly surreal, over-the-top stream of bizarre ideas - in fact, not much less anarchic than the "real" early surrealist movies by Buñuel, and more than the Marx Brothers (whose work Buñuel knew and liked, by the way). And very, very funny. The pace gets a bit slower then, but just a bit. There are some songs, typical for the time, and they're not bad, some even catchy - but I don't particularly care for them. Never mind - the silliness continues in a most amusing manner, including some wonderful running gags ("Oscar! Oscar!"). Martha Raye and Mischa Auer are particularly brilliant in this movie.
Cargo (2009)
A polished shell, not more
A clichéd space science fiction movie with a mediocre story, lacking any surprises, and certainly suffering from some plot holes. However. The imagery is quite beautiful, the actors aren't bad, and the simple, unoriginal story is nicely told. So, it's a shame that these people, although they are obviously capable of making a film that is technically nearly faultless on a low budget, couldn't come up with a better, more interesting story to tell. I really liked the pacing of "Cargo", the certain calmness in the unfolding of events, a rather dreamlike, slow but unstoppable progression. If only this polished shell of a movie were a little bit more than this, a mere shell! Sadly, it isn't. Still, let's hope that this wasn't the last science fiction effort of directors Engler and Etter; I would very much like to see them adapting a better story.
Metropolis (1927)
Visually groundbreaking, weak story
There can be no doubt that visually "Metropolis" is one of the most influential movies of all time, especially for the science-fiction/dystopia genre. Its bold, expressive visuals are still striking and a treat to watch, and it's not surprising that so many directors have found inspiration there; traces of "Metropolis" can be found in countless movies such as "Brazil", "The Fifth Element" or "Blade Runner", and even in some episodes of "Doctor Who".
Furthermore, we're now lucky to have a very good restoration available on DVD. Although this most recent release still doesn't contain a rather big part of footage, the gaps are filled by explanation texts (quite unobtrusive, as silent movies contain intertitles anyway) in an attempt to recreate the story in its original 1927 form. Most of the footage thought lost at the time of the DVD's release was recently rediscovered, so I think that we can expect an even better DVD not too far in the future, but due to the mentioned method of filling the gaps, the approximately 30 minutes still missing from this release certainly don't heavily deform the story. Still, if you want the movie in the most complete form imaginable, maybe you should wait for a release including the newly unearthed material.
Well, but now... to the story. As said above, a meticulously restored DVD release is available, so we can't blame loss of material for weaknesses of the story. And I have to say, if this were not such a visually amazing movie (with excellent original music, by the way, greatly enhancing the experience), I would give it four points out of 10, and only when feeling generous. This is not a good story. It has nothing to do with the age of the movie - there were many movies in the 1920s telling far better, far more consistent stories than this one.
My biggest issue is with the ending: For instance, foreman Grot suddenly being accepted as leader of the revolutionary workers, after previously appearing as Fredersen's loyal servant who e.g. dutifully provides Fredersen with the plans found in the pockets of dead workers and who tries to stop their attacks on the machine. Still, at the end, the movie depicts him as the one whom young Freder and Maria have to unite with Fredersen for a "happy ending". And that's it - what kind of ending is that? What message? What about the social situation of the workers? It's a false, sentimental pseudo-"happy end" and the movie's motto ''"Mittler zwischen Hirn und Händen muss das Herz sein"'' ("the heart must be mediator between brain and hands") is pure kitsch, especially in the way it is presented as the grand culmination of the whole movie's meaning.
No wonder the German critics largely ditched "Metropolis" in 1927... maybe underrating (although noting) its visual greatness, but being less forgiving regarding the story than many people nowadays, who maybe think "well, it's an old movie" - which would be grossly unfair towards what was possible and also achieved in the 1920s in movies, story-wise.
Nine points from me, nonetheless! Lang's imagery alone is great enough to justify such a vote.
Sunshine (2007)
Visually great, meagre plot
The sun is dying, Earth slowly freezing, and a team of astronauts aboard a spaceship called "Icarus 2" attached to an extra-huge bomb sets out to correct this by throwing the bomb into the sun, thus reigniting it. As far as I remember, there is no explanation whatsoever in the film itself for the sun dying that early (instead of in five billion years); all the stuff about theoretical particles etc. may be mentioned by the filmmakers in commentaries or the like, but not in the film. Well, it doesn't matter. The dying sun is presented as a fact and the viewer, stunned by brilliant imagery and a well-paced succession of events, can accept this.
Many beautifully made "sun effects" get us drawn into the majestic Sun's sheer greatness like the character at the movie's beginning who orders the spaceship's computer to let him see the sun as bright and as long as possible without getting blinded. Sadly, apart from the great idea to make the sun itself a film's main character, "Sunshine" has not a lot to offer. It's trying to present its obvious lack of ideas by over-obvious references to SF movie classics (calling the captain of the predecessor vessel "Pinbacker" and so on), but this doesn't help a lot. "Sunshine" is watchable, it doesn't exactly get boring, but without the aforementioned sun imagery it would be a bland, generic example of space SF.
It seems the filmmakers were desperately seeking for surprising things to happen on the way to the sun, but couldn't come up with something better than the abstruse "Icarus 1" story. You see, our ship is called the "Icarus 2", the "Icarus 1" being a lost ship, the failed first attempt to bomb the sun. We meet the Icarus 1, everyone there is dead although the ship is in good working order: they killed themselves by exposing to the sun, and from old records it seems that the captain suffered from some religious insanity, saying that if God wants to destroy Sun and Earth, they shouldn't try to interfere. After the astronauts are back on board of the Icarus 2, it turns out that Captain Pinbacker of the Icarus 1 isn't dead after all, has somehow managed to get to the Icarus 2, and wants to destroy everything. That's lame, that's meagre in my opinion.
It is also not a big surprise that the mission ultimately gets accomplished, though everyone on board dies. People watching the brightening sun from Earth, relatives viewing our hero's last message... a very expectable ending. It's all done well enough, however, to say that it is a movie you certainly can watch if you like space SF; I have bought it on DVD and don't think I wasted my money. It will not be one of your favorite movies, I presume, especially if compared to the great classics of the genres, but it will be a movie of which you will remember something - the enthralling Sun.
Total Balalaika Show (1994)
Surreal experience
The Red Army Choir performing "Happy Together" with a Finnish band called the Leningrad Cowboys? To top it, even singing "Finlandia" at Helsinki's Senate Square? This concert, filmed in 1993, would have seemed rather unthinkable a few years earlier. It's still a surreal experience to watch it on DVD: the Russian choir and orchestra in stiff uniforms, bearing a mostly somber expression combined with the ludicrously styled, eccentric Leningrad Cowboys and their often parodistic rock demeanour. Remembering the time of Cold War, it is also strangely touching. But what about the music? Well, I have to say that it's not bad at all. Quite the contrary, it's surprisingly good. The Red Army Choir's unnamed lead singer does impressive work together with the Cowboys, and I'm sure that the popular Russian songs sound exactly as they should, although the selection can't be called particularly original (neither the choice of Western songs), but that was probably exactly the right decision for a concert of this kind. It's energetic and in its incomparable blend of silliness and really serious musicianship (on both "sides") something to behold, indeed.
Beowulf & Grendel (2005)
Experimental approach
An interesting experiment - a heroic tale, in fact one of the most famous heroic tales, told in a very unheroic way. Removing poetic glamour and fantasy, the film leaves us with a bad-mannered bunch of rustic killers, the stark reality of Beowulf's time. In a way, it reminds me of Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" - it's not as openly satirical, but there are similarities in the demythologizing (or utterly story-deforming, as you could also call it) approach. This contrasts strangely with typical "heroic fantasy movie" cinematography and a sweeping orchestral soundtrack. The result is, as said above, interesting - but not exactly fascinating. Reshaped into the story of a wronged child who kills the killers of its father and is then killed by other killers (of whom one has some doubts and remorse), there is nothing amazing in it all, no supernatural feats are being done (even Grendel being just somewhat deformed, hulky, and very strong) - the latter certainly intended by the director, but I doubt that he also intended the prevalent lack of thrill. There's also a small problem with the setting. I love the Icelandic landscape, I love Iceland, but to me it seems that the coast at Dyrhólaey and Jökulsarlón are too well-known tourist sights, seen in every Iceland coffee-table book and also already used in other films... thus distracting from the story somewhat by being exactly localizable to those who aren't complete strangers to Iceland.