Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Death Proof (2007)
Where is the movie?
Rating this trash higher than 1 would be wrong, because it's simply not a real movie. It's roughly 2 hours of extremely boring dialogue delivered by uninteresting characters, and two mildly entertaining car chases. It doesn't go anywhere. There is nothing funny, witty, scary or exciting about it, nor does it convey or evoke any other feelings. Digitally making the first half of the film look aged, deliberately inserting bad audio-cuts and including a 5-minute black and white sequence for no reason whatsoever doesn't help either (yeah, we get it, it's supposed to look like a cheap 70s flick-- it doesn't). Unlike some of the B-movies it tries to imitate, Death Proof isn't even so bad it's funny. Unless the intention of this film is to put the audience to sleep, it fails horribly. Obviously Tarantino has lost it. He should have quit while he was ahead; his glory days of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are long gone.
If this laughably amateurish waste of celluloid was by anyone but Tarantino, it surely would have an overall IMDb-rating of no more than 2/10 and quite possibly rank among the bottom 100 worst movies.
Blade II (2002)
This movie has no style.
All the dark atmosphere and stylish music, the way Blade was portrayed, the cool villain- in short all that was cool and fun in the first movie is sadly missing from this one. The lack of character-development and story is substituted with lots of unnecessary gore and continuous action (but none of the fight-scenes are anywhere near as good as in first one!!). What a waste of time and money.
All those positive reviews here can mean only two things: Either the makers of Blade II are abusing IMDB to promote this poor sequel, or after years of being fed mass-produced Hollywood-crap the majority of reviewers here have completely lost their sense of taste.
Excellent Movie made in East Germany
Very intriguing movie with superb acting (!) that shows the life and mindset of young Germans during WW2, how they were moulded into becoming killers without second thoughts and how they were eventually used up in war. Definitely worth watching, especially if so far you have been exposed only to Hollywood's interpretation of the second world war and the nazis.
Unfortunately there is one HUGE propaganda-insertion though, which the DEFA included: At 54 minutes into the movie, the young men (or rather, boys) discuss Nazi racial-theory, where eventually one states that "Slavs are basically Aryans" (without anyone dissenting it) "Selbst wenn die Slawen nicht so hochwertig sind wie die Nordische Rasse, so sind sie doch immer noch Arier". This is total nonsense of course. The Slavs were considered sub-human by the Nazis, worth not very much more than Jews themselves. This propaganda-insertion is really bad in TWO ways because it a) twists around the truth 180 degrees in order to make their Big Brother from Russia look better AND b) because it looks like they ACCEPT the nazi-racial theory; why else would they try to make the Slavs look better? The Nazi racial theory IS COMPLETE NONSENSE of course since there are no human races. This one sentence should be cut out when showing "Werner Holt" today, as it gives the whole movie a cheap taste: What else could be made up? And that shouldn't be, since everything else in it seems very accurately depicted.
One note concerning the previous comment by Mrdat Kundu: Their black uniforms are quite correct. Those are Panzer-uniforms. Maybe you should have done some research before claiming such nonsense. Besides, they never were "standard Wehrmacht". First they were members of the HJ (Hitler Youth), then RAD (Reichs Labour Service) and then members of the Panzertruppe (Armoured Troops). Did you really read the novel 3-4 times?
The reason for them fighting Soviets instead of Americans in the movie is quite obvious: How could the DEFA possibly have gotten American WW2 tanks/uniforms/weapons? And it really shouldn't matter to anyone that the Soviets are using Kalashnikov rifles, as the movie is not trying to depict weapons, but people. (Unless of course you have read the novel 3-4 times, do not know the difference between Panzer and SS uniforms and rate the quality of a movie by the types of weapons used in it).
Boring, slow, dull, uninspired. Hulk is an under-developed Frankenstein's Monster rip-off. Way too long for its way too short story.
This movie is about as intelligent as FOX-TV.
Computer generated images are NOT everything.
Wait, you were expecting mindless destruction? Sorry to disappoint you: There's not very much destruction either.
Final verdict: If you pay money to see "Hulk" you actively encourage the production of bad movies. Don't let the studios get away with this! Just say "NO".
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
You knew it for a long time.
Just nobody pointed it out to you before in such a direct way.
To those who havent seen "Bowling for Columbine", I urge you to see it- especially if you are an American. If you don't understand what is wrong with the American society after watching this, then you never will.
Verdict: The best thing to hit the big screen in years. It should be shown to all children in all schools all around the world.
Minority Report (2002)
Ooo what a stinker! I want my money back.
Honestly, I want my money back. The full 15. Yes, I made the mistake of taking my date to this... film. The premise is old. Really old. A cop who lost his family and who is being framed. Been there, done that.
Some parts of the movie are so illogical they make your brain hurt (see SPOILERS). The whole oracle thing is a poor idea (probably inspired by AKIRA). The Pre-cogs are living, thinking human beings kept in nutrient solution (why?), drugged all day (and this is not a human rights problem)?? And they can predict the future... wait, only murders. And seemingly they can forsee only murders to be committed in Washington DC (this is where the experiment is being conducted). Why the heck? Then again, apparently there is no other crime but murder- at least we see no normal police during the whole movie.
The Precrime Police imprison people for crimes not yet comitted. This is really the best part (sarcasm alert): The would-be-criminals (read: still innocent people) are stored in some sort of stasis- indefinitely. And there is no chance of rehabilitation. Demolition Man, anyone?
Somehow this movie feels like being based upon a cheap 1950s scifi short story written by a hack with the usual Hollywood-ending added later on. Reminds me of the Hollywood-ending which was added to Bladerunner...
Final Verdict: Don't waste your money on it like I did.
SPOILERS (aka. plotholes)
John Anderton does not kill Leo Crow, Crow basically kills himself. So why do the Pre-cogs predict it?
Lamar Burgess does not kill John Anderton. Why do the Pre-cogs predict it?
Allow me two last questions: After having escaped, why doesn't John simply walk away (thus altering the future and making his arrest impossible)? And why does John confront Burgess even AFTER his name is cleared- does he want to be killed after all he went trough??
Vampires: Los Muertos (2002)
Better than the first
The main problem of the first "Vampires" movie is that none of the characters were sympathetic. Carpenter learned from his mistake and this time used a likable vampire hunter and a charismatic vampire. The female vampire Una certainly is the coolest vampire since Blade's Deacon Frost. Unfortunately while there are some good concepts like a cool slow motion restaurant scene (why didn't Carpenter use more of this??) this movie is nowhere near as good as it could have been. I expected to see strong vampires in action and at least one longer lasting nicely choreographed fight sequence (for example inside a city) and was left somewhat disappointed. While "Los Muertos" proceeds at a faster pace than its predecessor, it still drags a little in some parts (though nowhere near as bad as "Vampires" did). Much like "Vampires" however this movie's climax near the end is not very intense.
Most of the above may sound like "Los Muertos" is a bad movie but it definitely isn't. It is generally enjoyable and ranks among the better entries to the genre. It is neither an unoriginal Dracula remake (like almost every other vampire movie out there) nor is it an unintelligent action spectacle like Blade II. It simply could have used a bit more excitement.
I'd really like to see a third installment made by Carpenter but it's probably not going to happen.
SPOILER WARNING The ending was way too predictable. Una should have gotten away- that would have made the movie quite unusual.
Yet another show too good for the general public
A clever and imaginative cartoon based on the popular comic strip, Dilbert was aimed at an educated adult audience. That's why it failed: Most people who would have enjoyed it probably never saw it. After all it's ratings, not quality which keep a show running. Unfortunately so, because Dilbert is not your mindless everyday sitcom stultification.
Critical Care (1997)
Nice little film.
A very sarcastic film, and quite an entertaining one, too. Although (or maybe because) many of the truths about the American medical system presented seem to have been taken directly from Samuel Shem's novels, and despite the hard to believe ending, this movie is fun to watch. Its relatively low imdb rating is prove for the relatively low level of humor that most people share. I recommend this movie to any medical student, trust me- you will enjoy it.
Cast Away (2000)
This movie sux. It sux and sux and sux...
It sux for 143 minutes. That is awfully long for a boring Robinson Crusoe rip-off minus Friday (who made a boring novel a little less boring) plus permanent Fed EX product-placement. Much too long. Precisely 142 minutes and 40 seconds too long. Yes, this movie is actually the longest commercial known to man.
I wonder if Tom Hanks plans to star in tearjerkers for the rest of his career...
But even more I wonder how much longer audiences are going to fall for this kind of mass produced crap.
Hollywood, I loathe thee!