Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Who will watch the Watchmen? Not me! That's for sure!
I was excited about this movie as I thought it would be another great superhero comic book movie like Spider-man, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Fantastic Four or the X-men-trilogy. How wrong I was! This movie is the total opposite. Here's why: 1) There is only one true superhero and he is super-boring as he has zero emotions and looks more like a sexual version of the Oscar statuette. The other characters aren't superheroes and thus they are futile as characters - they never seem to matter in the storyline. Also: the only interesting character is a guy called the comedian but then he is annoying in everything he says or does.
2) The action is only impressive in the first scene; everything else is flat and dull.
3) The storyline is wáy too complex. The story switches back and forth too many times and we get too much information of which none of it seems to matter. There is also too much political crap rather than some good superhero-action. The voice-over is interesting to begin with but after a couple of minutes, it feels like some kind of failed, wanna-be Max Payne-video game voice-over. And what's with the music? At times songs play during scenes in this movie that have no substance whatsoever; like the restaurant scene that has "99 Luftballons" by Nena playing all of a sudden.
4) The so-called cool darkness in this movie wánts to be like "300" or "Sin city", but it's just plain boring.
In short: IF this movie will please any fans at all, they will most likely almost be all fanboys of the comic-book. This movie will NOT become a mainstream-success; I can guarantee you that! The characters are boring (even the superhero guy is plain stupid), the storyline is ridiculously complex with nonsense and seems to head for absolutely no point whatsoever.
2009 WILL have a great comic-book movie ("Wolverine") but it will not be this one ...
Watchmen? Simple. DON'T watch!! :D
The Descent (2005)
More than just decent ...
I had never seen a movie by English director Neil Marshall, but this is certainly a guy to keep your eyes on. I don't know if this movie is going to be his one hit wonder or the beginning of a great career, but the thriller-horror movie "The descent" isn't just decent ... it's bloody fantastic! The story evolves around a bunch of women who regularly come together to organize a truly overwhelming adventure. Only this time they might have exaggerated in doing so since they find themselves trapped in a cave as a result. To make matters worse: they find out that a strange breed of predators have made a home here.
The greatest achievement of this movie is that you genuinely care about its characters. Without that: this would have been another slice-and-dice slasher film. But "The descent" is much more than that. This excellent thriller does not just feature six beautiful women. The acting of these ladies is also very inspiring. Each character is different from the next and this makes the story even more interesting. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. Some camera-shots create such a disturbing and claustrophobic mood that it almost feels as though you were actually there with them (wishful thinking; I suppose). The different set-pieces are also amazing and make you forget that you are watching a movie. Once the six wannabe-Tomb Raiders descend into the mysterious cave, the tension is very delicately built up. How these crawling cave creatures look like is spoon-fed to us so as to not spoil the big ultra-terrifying moment when we meet them face-to-face for the first time ever. After that: it becomes an action-packed horror movie which is both fun and frightening to watch, but it never descends in quality.
In short: "The descent" is a masterful thriller-horror movie which excels on all levels. It is pretty much flawless and should not be missed by any and all who love a good scare! Thriller-wise: this is as good as it gets!
The Kingdom (2007)
When I came out of the theatre, I honestly didn't know what to think of this film. I was never impressed by any of its action sequences nor was I ever touched by any of its drama. Personally, I think there are two reasons as to why I didn't really like this film. First of all: "The kingdom" doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be. It continuously switches from being a very realistic drama in an almost documentary manner to a cheap and typical popcorn Hollywood-movie where the Americans always seem to come out on top. I think director Peter Berg, who did in fact make the superb black comedy "Very bad things", should have stayed away from trying out such a rare and risky combination. Secondly: it could also be that I have grown sick and tired of watching American movies that evolve around El-Quaida. I know that this is a way for America to get over the horrible atrocities of 9/11, (the same thing happened when America had lost the Vietnam-war which then resulted in dozens of Vietnam-movies) but enough is enough! Frankly: I've had it with this topic.
This doesn't mean that "The kingdom" is a bad movie - it's just nowhere near as powerful and captivating as "The siege" featuring a wonderful Denzel Washington and a brilliant cult-classic which also evolves around terrorism and in a much more truthful way. However: the cast is good; especially the acting by Chris Cooper is refreshing. The actor Ashraf Barhom also does a very fine job as Colonel Al Ghazi. The white-spread panic is quite realistic. The uncomfortable tone in the Middle East that each person could get shot if they don't wear a bullet-proof vest will keep you attached but seems a little overdone somehow. It's when the action hits the silver screen that this movie degrades to a mediocre blockbuster. The action itself is not bad, but somehow failed to get my attention. I was watching the movie but I didn't feel a single thing. The four American government agents aren't very interesting characters; in my humble opinion. I thought the Saudi-Arabian people in this movie were definitely more convincing. The few yet very apparent flaws eventually result in an average movie; nothing more!
And then there's the so-called knock-out ending! Yeah, right! The ending wasn't bad, but in my humble opinion it was pretty generic. The Americans save the day against overwhelming odds of surprisingly incompetent terrorists who cannot land a single hit until the very end. Of course, one of "the good guys" has to die to give the whole thing a 'deeper' and more 'dramatic' meaning, so they choose to sacrifice the Saudi colonel ... the easiest choice in order to not bother the audience too much by killing one of the FBI-agents. Like the movie: the ending is feeble and middling at best!
In short: "The kingdom" is an okay-movie but lacks the intensity that a real war drama has. It also seems way too polished and thus cannot shed the fact that it is a Hollywood-blockbuster telling a story about terrorism. If this was the first of its kind, I'd probably be a little more enthusiastic. I think this movie is simply too dumb to be treated with any real respect!
The biggest fiasco in movie history!
Planning to do a remake can be a tricky thing. Sometimes they result in masterpieces such as the 1991-classic "Cape fear"; sometimes they become the most awful nonsense ever made such as the 1998-garbage "Psycho". The truth is: it's not that hard to decide whether a remake is a good decision or a big mistake. There is only one simple rule and that's this. Don't meddle with classics! A remake should only be made if the original film is flawed or totally forgotten.
The original 1978-version "Halloween" is neither. It's a perfect thriller-horror movie featuring great acting performances by everyone involved along with the brilliant cinematography of creator John Carpenter. This is one movie that will never die out! I believe it is one out of four extremely important thriller-horror movies that have genuinely revolutionized their genre. The other three are: "Psycho" (1960), "A nightmare on Elm Street" and "Scream".
I have never used these very words before, but I cannot think of one single positive thing to say about the 2007-version of "Halloween". Director Rob Zombie really did everything wrong when making this movie. This remake has more holes than Swiss cheese, and lacks common sense and feeling as it races blindly ahead.
First: it spends way too much time trying to humanize the evil character Michael Myers by showing us an utterly boring background of depressing childhood. Michael Myers did not become an evil person because his upbringing was a very tough time for him. He did not become an extremely dangerous and seemingly unstoppable monster because his mother was in love with a foul-mouthed loser and his sister teased him from time to time. That whole section of Michael Myers the troubled kid was simply pathetic. They spoon-fed us too much information. His lack of motive would have kept this movie mysterious and chilling.
Secondly: because the director wasted half the movie showing us a Michael Myers as a murderous child, he irreversibly started to rush things as soon as we got to lay our eyes on the adult, white-masked version. Because of this huge mistake, Rob Zombie doesn't find the time to properly set the frightening mood imperative to a thriller such as this which evolves around the scariest time of the year namely Halloween. Why Michael Myers never really stalks his victims nor rarely watches them from a distance in this remake, is beyond me. He almost immediately attacks them and that is not how Michael Myers operates; which is why this film falls flat on its face and fails to be genuinely scary.
The mask itself was authentic but for some stupid reason they decided to make him much taller. Michael Myers is not a giant per se, he's just an evil and entirely emotionless human being and as such: the personification of fear! Moreover: the actor does a terrible job as well. In this movie, Michael moved too swiftly when in fact he never seems to change his pace when pursuing someone. This altogether adds to the already creepy atmosphere. And why did the adult-version of Michael Myers look like an over-sized Kurt Cobain when not wearing any sort of mask? This, and so much more, is why this movie is not a superb thriller like the original one, but an exceptionally dumb and boring slasher film.
To make matters worse: the scenes in this remake that match the ones of the original come across as a painful déjà-vu but the scenes that are entirely different are just plain stupid. All characters are one-dimensional and I honestly couldn't care less what would happen to them. I couldn't even bring myself into finishing this movie. After an hour and a half, I walked out of the theatre because I got so worked up with the extremely low quality of this irritatingly-unscary remake.
The acting is not bad but it's a joke when compared to the original cast. Malcolm McDowell isn't really that awful, but the character Dr. Samuel Loomis will always carry the face of the brilliant actor Donald Pleasence; to me. Just like Laurie Strode will always be connected with Jamie Lee Curtis and certainly not Scout Taylor-Compton. Take a look-out for actress Leslie Easterbrook. Her role is a minor one, but you might still recognize her from the "Police Academy"-movies where she played the tough and sexy female cop Captain Callahan. Brad Dourif plays the part of the local sheriff.
In short: One can only take a wild guess as to why they wanted to make a remake of John Carpenter's "Halloween". I, for one, think this movie has failed miserably on all levels. This is truly one of the all-time worst thrillers ever made! This "Halloween" has become the epitome of boredom.
Second wake-up call to save our planet!
Just like Al Gore shook us up with his painfully honest and cleverly presented documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth", directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield also remind us that it's about time to improve our way of life in order to save our beautiful planet. "Planet earth" is also a wake-up call that the global warming of our planet has disastrous consequences for all living creatures around the world. Al Gore showed us the bleak future of planet Earth by presenting hard facts backed up by documented examples through long yet always interesting monologues. The creators of this documentary choose a different yet equally powerful way to accomplish this. They do not present us with a future representation of what might occur to our planet if we don't radically change things around, but they rather show us the genuine beauty of planet Earth in all of its amazing glory. We see places that we knew that existed but never thought they could be so beautiful. In this movie, we see a wide array of the most extraordinary places such as forsaken deserts, giant forests full of fauna and flora and icy-landscapes as far as the eye could see. And in all of those immensely different environments, we see the most beautiful animals trying to survive.
This is exactly the kind of movie that had to be made, in combination with the one from Al Gore, in order to make us realize that our planet is too precious to meddle with. The voice-over by Patrick Stewart is always relaxing and thus very well done although at first it sounded as though I was watching an X-men movie instead! The cinematography is probably the most remarkable thing of this documentary. At times: what you see is so unreal that you tend to forget that a man with a camera actually had to film all of that delightful footage.
In short: This is definitely a must-see for everyone since it concerns every single person on this beautiful planet Earth! The truth is: I never thought our planet was so astonishingly beautiful!
Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
Nightmare versus Hockey-mask!
Around the same time that they brought together the two greatest alien creatures to fight one another in the great action movie "Alien vs. predator", they also did the same thing with the two greatest horror icons in this film. Fact is that the first one is definitely better than the latter one in almost every aspect. Still: "Freddy vs. Jason" is an enjoyable popcorn-movie with respect to both characters. I would have rather preferred a movie called "Freddy vs. Michael" because I firmly believe Jason Vorhees is nothing short of a stupid, pointless and shameful copy of the Halloween-killer. Jason Vorhees took so many characteristics from Michael Myers without adding anything remotely new. They both have white masks, are unable to speak, move slowly whilst swinging a terribly sharp stabbing weapon and have a knack for good-looking and defenceless youngsters. So many obvious similarities yet one huge difference. Michael Myers is the coolest killer ever created whilst Jason Vorhees is simply utterly boring. Like Superman, this Friday the 13th-mass murderer is seemingly indestructible. How boring is that?
"Freddy vs. Jason" contains little or no story, but that's OK. The main focus lies on the originality of each killing and the viciousness and bloody manner in which each teenager potentially becomes a victim. Even so: they had to come up with a way to resurrect these slaughterers and it's done beautifully. The story is that Freddy Krueger brings Jason Vorhees back to life and sends him to Elm Street. There the hockey-masked killer will do what he does best and this leads to a terrifying mayhem amongst the people of that town. The authorities immediately think of Freddy Krueger as the perpetrator of these atrocities and from that moment forth teenagers of the neighborhood remember his name and they get awful and deadly nightmares again as a direct result of their fear for him. Thus Freddy's plan worked to come back to his children.
Even though the very ending of this movie is a bit silly; it is the only real flaw this movie has. The rest of the movie is a lot of fun to watch and even a little scary from time to time. Both killers get the same amount of screen time and their duel near the end of the movie is quite entertaining. Robert Englund has played the part of Freddy Krueger numerous of times and naturally he does an outstanding job! Ken Kirzinger was chosen to play the part of Jason Vorhees, because he was so tall and thus looked more menacing than Kane Hodder (the actor who's been playing Jason in many movies before). These two performances are easily the most important ones in this movie. The rest of the cast is good enough, but hardly anything more than that.
In short: "Freddy vs. Jason" is a good movie where the clash between two iconic horror creatures becomes the main event. The murders are quite elaborate and original. And there's also a good mix of dark humor and entertaining thrills.
Arguably the greatest horror sequel ever made ...
More often than not, making a sequel to a successful horror film ends up in tragedy. The word sequel got a bad name for itself by the huge amount of stupid and overly pointless horror films that were made to cash in on the success of the first film. But every now and then: a sequel is made that does in fact give the impression of being an original and enjoyable movie rather than a blunt and tiresome duplicate. For the "Halloween"-series, the best sequels are "Halloween II" and "H20". For the "Friday the 13th"-series, there is probably only one descent sequel and that's the first one namely "Friday the 13th part 2". And of all "Freddy Krueger"-films, the best sequel is without a doubt this film over here: "A nightmare on Elm Street 3".
Seeing as how the second Freddy Krueger-film was a pretty bad movie, the third one had to be a good one again in order to keep this otherwise unique series from dying off. To do that, inventor and director of the first film Wes Craven wrote a captivating story and also served as an executive producer on this movie. Whether its his influence and array of fresh ideas or the thrilling camera-work by director Chuck Russell (most famous for making movies like "The mask" and "Eraser"), the third Freddy Krueger-movie isn't just a good sequel ... it's also a great horror movie!
The story forgets about the second film since it added nothing new or interesting. And that's why it picks up right where we left off in the first film. Freddy's main opponent and sole survivor Nancy Thompson returns to help out a couple of troubled youngsters at a psychiatric institution who are all having the same horrible nightmares as she once did. Nancy has become a psychiatrist specializing in dream therapy and this knowledge combined with her background will certainly do a lot of good to these teens, but of course other doctors are reluctant and want to stick to their more traditional approaches. One doctor in particular will eventually start thinking outside the box and follow through.
Even though this movie is good, it is however slightly different from the first one. Freddy Krueger has started uttering funny one-liners in this movie which, unfortunately so, makes him a little more of a clown than a demon. Not to worry though, because the man with the hat and the claws is still quite terrifying. The murders are also much more inventive and elaborate than ever before. The special effects have improved and the manner in which they want to destroy Freddy for all eternity is by far the most plausible one. The big twist at the end of the movie is sad but satisfying.
Virtually all characters in this movie are very entertaining to watch mainly because you get to know all of them pretty well. What's also very good is the acting. Heather Langenkamp and John Saxon both return from the first movie and pick up their characters again. Both have already gotten used to playing these and it shows. Heather looks really beautiful in this movie. The friendly doctor is played by Craig Wasson. He is not really a well-known actor, but his performance in this movie is really good. Then there's also Laurence Fishburne who is certainly most famous for playing Morpheus in the "Matrix"-movies. He plays the part of Max the janitor; a character who is bound by the rules of the hospital but definitely cares about the patients. Patricia Arquette plays the role of Kristen Parker; the most gifted of all plagued teenagers. Her acting is good. And naturally: Robert Englund steals the show as Freddy Krueger! His performance is once again spot-on!
In short: "A nightmare on Elm Street 3" is easily the best of all Freddy Krueger-sequels! Everything feels absolutely right about this movie! There are many colorful characters to be had as well as brutal yet fun-to-watch death sequences and most of all: there is a story which guides all of this to its spectacular ending! For all I know, this great movie may very well be even better than the first one!
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Are you ready for Freddy?
Director Wes Craven became instantly world-famous through his immensely successful "Scream"-trilogy, but his finest and most original film was made more than 10 years beforehand. Not only the movie was groundbreaking but its main character also became one of the all-time greatest horror icons. "A nightmare on Elm Street" isn't your typical slasher film; it's far more impressive and intelligent. The story is about a demon that kills teenagers in their sleep. The cinematography is so brilliantly done that the lines between the dream world and reality often get blurred. Near the end of the movie, it becomes a real puzzle to figure out whether what you see is a genuine event or part of a dream sequence.
The bad guy in this movie is one of the most powerful demons from hell. His clothing however might suggest otherwise. He wears a stupid, brown hat and a red-and-black striped sweater. The most unique trademark of this horribly-burnt child molester is his glove with razor-sharp finger-knives. He will use them to slaughter his innocent victims who find themselves trapped in a mysterious world from which they cannot possibly seem to escape. In this world, the monster is all powerful like a god and he will set the rules in opposition whenever he feels like.
This movie is certainly the darkest and most terrifying of them all. The first time we see Freddy Krueger in the flesh is truly one of the most spine-chilling moments in horror history! This creepy-looking creature is beautifully played by actor Robert Englund who's an American leading actor of Swedish descent and very famous for appearing in dozens of horror films. His greatest achievement will however always be his chilling portrayal of Freddy Krueger. The main part is played by actress Heather Langenkamp who stars as Nancy Thompson; the girl who decides to fight back rather than become another victim. Her performance is quite good as is John Saxon who plays her father. This is also the debut of Johnny Depp. Needless to say: Wes Craven is the most important person for he came up with the idea and directed the movie as well.
In short: "A nightmare on Elm Street" is not only a horror classic, but also one of the finest horror movies ever made! It's an intelligent and very original yet gory thriller! If you ever wish to try out a horror movie - this is a great one to begin with! As for Freddy Krueger, he is - in my humble opinion - the single most original horror icon ever thought of!
Shrek the Third (2007)
It's not easy being green ...
The first movie ever produced by Dreamworks, was the great action movie "The peacemaker" with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman. The first animation pictures by Dreamworks were "The prince of Egypt" and "The road to El Dorado". The truth however is that it was the 2001-blockbuster "Shrek" that put Dreamworks on the map. It was a fabulous animation picture and one of the funniest ever made. The sequel had less jokes than the first one, but it turned out to be the ultimate feel-good movie and thus it was a fantastic movie altogether. Many wondered how far they could go with this franchise. As it turned out, there will be a fourth Shrek-movie in the near future and there's even a spin-off planned for one of its characters namely the Spanish Zorro-cat Puss in Boots. Needless to say: this franchise is doing extremely well. Even so: the third Shrek-film is by far the weakest one yet and this let-down is a bit unexpected.
"Shrek the Third" is by no means a bad movie. It's in fact the opposite. It's a good movie. The special effects of this film are absolutely stunning! They are better than those of the previous Shrek-movies. Now each and every character has its own unique clothing and they all have a very different kind of haircut too. There's more use of color and a much wider variety of facial expressions of each character. The amount of people in a single frame has also increased exponentially. The frequent use of daylight (or any other kind of light such as torches) and darkness are far more impressive and they also open up a whole new world for creating realistic shadows. New world are introduced as well and they all appear vastly superior. And we even get to see real magic by Merlin; the greatest wizard of all who can shoot light beams from his hands.
So visually, the Shrek-movies have only improved. Then what's with that slight feel of disappointment if everything seems so beautiful? Well, the problem is that they obviously were more focused on the looks than on the contents of this animation film. "Shrek the Third" is always quite amusing to watch and never any boring, but there simply aren't too many funny jokes to be had. Whilst the first film was literally crammed with hilarious moments, the third one will probably produce a few smiles on your face and an occasional laugh ... but that's about it! The overuse of long-winded monologues and conversations are the main reason as to why the third Shrek-film is no match for its previous installments. Then again: the newborn triplets of Shrek are without a doubt the cutest thing ever created in the history of animation. They look like real babies and all three of them are exceptionally adorable. Pity that we only saw so little of them in this movie. But I have a strong feeling that they will play an important part in the next one for sure.
The cast of "Shrek the Third" is only growing with each new chapter. By now: Mike Myers is playing on automatic pilot and the same could be said for Cameron Diaz and Eddy Murphy. They are all still quite funny but they add nothing new really. Antonio Banderas should also be categorized as such, but somehow I found his character a lot more amusing than the ones above. The same goes for Rupert Everett who stars again as Prince Charming. This character is also a joy to watch. A lot less funny but still okay are two new characters. The wizard Merlin makes a short yet rather comical appearance and is wonderfully voiced by British actor Eric Idle who's probably best known as a member of Monty Python. American singer/songwriter Justin Timberlake does the voice of Artie - the soon-to-be king of Far far away. This character is neither interesting nor funny, and that's a real pity.
Many fairy tale creatures return such as Pinocchio, the three pigs and of course the Gingerbread man. New ones are added such as Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping beauty. The constant quarrel between the ladies does provide a couple of good jokes. But unfortunately: not all jokes work out well. And this is not how things used to be in the world of Shrek. Perhaps the fourth movie will find a perfect balance again between awesome computer graphics and an endless diversity of funny jokes.
In short: "Shrek the Third" is not only the third in number, but also in quality. It's a good animation movie but the cracks are clearly beginning to show. If the next movie isn't hilarious like Shrek 1 or refreshing like Shrek 2, they ought to pull the plug.
Too much dust on this star ...
I love science-fantasy movies more than virtually anything else! Aliens, terminators, gremlins, wizards, hobbits or Jedi ... I love to travel to other worlds full of weird and wonderful creatures. So naturally: as soon as I found out that "Stardust" was also going to be a fantasy film, my expectations ran very high. I ended up being somewhat disappointed because of two reasons. First of all: I expected too much. I thought this would be another dazzling film that would spawn many sequels such as "Star Wars" or "Harry Potter". Secondly and most importantly: this movie is a soft-hearted fairytale for children. There are no dark creatures or massive battles to be found. There is hardly even any magic at all; with the exception of three ugly witches doing what they do best. Thus the movie was not what I had anticipated.
The make-up department of this movie surely had their work cut out for them for they had to turn Michelle Pfeiffer into an ugly witch. They did a great job seeing as how one of the most gorgeous women ever in Hollywood indeed looked unattractive in this film. Fortunately: we get to see a lot more of the original Michelle Pfeiffer than the transformed ugly one. Ever since her come-back, this is the second time in a row that the beautiful blonde plays an evil character (the first one was in the hilarious musical "Hairspray") and she clearly enjoys this change in her career. Another famous actor who stars in this fantasy film is Robert De Niro. He plays the part of Captain Shakespeare and both his character as well as his performance are quite something else and funny at the same time. There is also Claire Danes whom you may recognize from "Romeo & Juliet" and "Terminator 3: Rise of the machines". She plays the part of Yvaine - the fallen star who becomes the centre of everything that will occur in this movie.
The storyline however is the cause for my discontent. It is so lifeless. It doesn't contain much more than a young man named Tristan searching for a fallen star and bringing it back as a present to the woman he loves. The entire movie shows us Tristan and Yvaine walking from the fantasy world to the human world. During their journey they encounter many mildly interesting characters. An extremely beautiful witch, a brave yet corrupt warrior who turns out to be one of 7 sons of the king and the only one who's still alive and a flying vessel full of pirates who desperately need to catch as much lightning as possible. The duel at the end of the movie is by far the most captivating moment; I believe. The rest of the movie is mediocre at best.
Nevertheless: I found the sons of the king to be very entertaining. Virtually all of them had died and thus were mostly ghosts throughout this film. That's why they served as an audience delivering clever one-liners and always having a front row seat with everything that transpired in this movie. Unfortunately: such delights are few and far between and whilst this movie is probably entertaining enough, it is almost never really funny.
In short: A perfect movie for children or anyone who likes cute and cheerful fantasy films that hold no darkness whatsoever. I, on the other hand, prefer more mature fantasy films that feature awe-inspiring battles as well as numerous ingenious creatures! The everlasting beauty of Michelle Pfeiffer is always a joy to watch and makes up for this!