15 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
The Oath (2016)
Mediocre TV-Thriller
23 June 2017
This movie did some things right, but also failed at many occasions. I liked the setting, the camera work, some of the actors (the daughter showed some decent acting), and the composition of most of the scenes, i.e. the background, was well done.

What I did not like was the main actor, who has a cinema-suited face, but that's all he has. Maybe he was told to not show any emotions, or he is just not able to. In either case he was really boring to watch, he did not seem emotionally involved in the scenes. You will also get some blatant product placement, which should have been done more subtle. If you need money for your film and you have to put in some product, at least do it in a way that's not so much in your face. The main actor, his wife, and the police chief were also poorly designed. They are full of cliché, and do not have those interesting traits that would make them a person which is somewhat believable. It seems that the main character was mostly designed in way that they could show off some "cool looking" scenery and camera work, his "hobbies" seemed to be chosen just for this reason. The wife of the main character seems only to be there to show a worried face and smoke. She did not say anything interesting or important.

The story was OK, for a TV-Thriller, but the other flaws did not allow me to get into it. And some scenes were just completely unnecessary. Anyway, I am writing this because no one else has written a review, and the current score is misleading, if you ask me.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Whiplash (2014)
watching teenagers being abused
9 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This movie tries so hard to display the hardships of training to be a musician that the whole image shifts into simple physical and mental abuse of human beings, in this case teenagers. As another reviewer said: it is the boot camp of music. I did not believe what I was seeing. If there was a movie where some dog-whisperer is hitting the dog and yelling at it and this would prove to be working as a method to 'educate' the dog, then people would be upset. But treating a human like that is OK? this just sickens me. yes, you can get humans to do some things by pushing them with violence. Get them into an obedient state of mind, that is simply following orders. But there is a reason why this strategy of motivation has proved to be only effective in the military: There, human lives are indeed worthless. This treatment will make you 'harder', meaning it will make you less of a human being.

When it comes to music however it is impossible to achieve great results with these methods. It can only lead to a soul- and heartless disaster. A fitting result would have been an aggression build-up in the main character which would have prevented him from ever playing anything worth listening to again. This reaction has been seen in other movies where usually the people that are socially connected to the main character will have to suffer from the violent state of mind that this mistreatment is causing. The other possibility is a simple resignation, either by quitting music or by quitting life.

But what is displayed here is wrong on many levels, because it tells you that this abuse leads to something beautiful. That it is all worth it because it pushes you to your limits and then you will be a great musician. Whoever made up this story is either suffering from a severe psychosis or has the intent to justify abusive methods in education by presenting them as effective.

If you treat people with violence they will get violent too. Either towards others or towards themselves. This is the only result you will achieve. And in this case it would also completely destroy the main character's ability to be a musician. Music is not the military. You do need discipline and training, but this comes from mental strength. And you do not get stronger by being abused. It will only weaken you.

It makes me sad seeing that apparently this movie is entertaining to people. This can only be the case if they do not see the utter failure in judgment that is presented here. And if they do not see it then they are blind in a way that is worrying.
113 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
facepalm time. they don't know much about star trek.
20 August 2013
what they have turned star trek into is unfortunately a disgrace to the series. they have no idea about technology, diplomacy, war, the races or anything that made the series great. they just can do a lot of special effects, 'cool-looking' scenes, cheap lines, cliché emotional drama and fighting scenes. all of it orchestrated with the music. this is done as you would expect it if someone really focuses on that. so those aspects are not bad, there is just a lot left to desire. but if you don't mind getting only all of what i just mentioned and really nothing more then go ahead and see it. but if you want to use your brain while watching you will be disappointed. even more so if you are a fan of the series. the display of the klingons was ridiculous, they just posed as the evil-looking enemy for a fighting scene. the characters and the relationship between them feel flat and boring. the actors try to be very dramatic which makes it unbelievable for me. this combined with their cheap lines and trying to be humorous at some points make it feel forced. the story is very easy to follow, not much to process there. it has a lot of holes that are immediately visible. of course only if you are used to really concentrate on a movie on different levels.

just don't expect star trek if you are going to see this movie. what you get is a space-drama combined with some aspects of star trek. calling it dumbed down would be accurate in my opinion. but i don't judge. different people want and expect different things. but what the star trek fans expect is probably not there.

it's as if the movie follows a guide-book or a check-list for standard action movies.

though i have to admit that i didn't really like the star trek series when mr. kirk was the lead. maybe they tried to remake that part of the series, i don't know. i just know it's not for me.
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Planet Ocean (2012)
Breathtaking visuals, very impressive
13 May 2013
I'm unsure as to how to review a documentary style 'movie'. what makes a documentary good? i am not sure. i will just review some of the aspects.

Scientific accuracy: i was very pleased with this. i think i found only a few rather debatable scientific statements.

pictures: the best thing about this movie. it was stunning. also the commentary was really well adjusted to the current scene.

commentary: sticking to the facts, not being preachy, just like i want it.

i think that's all of what i want from a documentary. it kept me concentrated and gave me something interesting to think about while letting me admire nature's beauty (but also letting me ponder over man's achievements seen from this angle). yes, i want more of it. nicely done.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ring of Fire (2012– )
first impression: good intentions, some problems
12 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
bad things first:

the main good character that is an environmentalist happens to be the daughter of the main evil character who is the head of a big oil company. that's so unbelievable. lets put some more conflict in it, shall we? why do they have to do this. and of course she has a son who she cant see because she's a criminal activist and also has no time for him due to her enthusiasm for environmental protection. oh, the conflict. many sad faces to be expected there. and of course many emotional scenes with her dad. great stuff. for women, i guess.

another thing that put me off was the soap-opera-style of many of the scenes. you know, when there is dialog and one character delivers a very well prepared line and then dramatically leaves the scene, and the camera focuses on a pondering face of the other guy? that happens like 10 times in the first part.

unfortunately the pacing is a little slow. it's not as annoying as in other series but a little less dialog and more action would be nice. no i don't mean Hollywood-action. i mean people doing things other than talking. this is probably only because of the introductory nature of the first part though. but the action scenes at the end of the first part have a big problem for me: the shaky camera again. it's too much. i cant see what's going on. stop that, please. i don't mind cheap special effects because i know it is not a movie and has a lot lower budget. but i do mind if i don't see what's going on. blurry shapes wont help with that.

aside from that, the story is not bad. it feels a little weak at the beginning but it's getting better. the protest scenes and the speech scene at the beginning were really not promising. but it makes up for that. it may not be scientifically accurate but i am not in a position to judge that. speaking of that, there is a scene where they happen to be a few meters away from an explosion and they don't react at all. 'what was that?' she asked with a an expression on her face that would make you think she's talking about some minor unusual sound she has just heard. and then they run to the crater as if there is no danger at all. why? that's not how you do it.

i did enjoy most of it though. i was focusing on the bad stuff. so keep that in mind. and i only have seen the first part. it's (probably) not a bad series. but those issues that i have described could have been avoided which is kind of sad because this could have been a much better series.

just one more thing: you should probably avoid this series if you don't like environmentalists. because in this series they are right. they are the good guys. i agree with that (not always and not entirely but mostly). but some of you might not.

edit: i've just watched the second part, and unfortunately it was worse than the first one. mostly for acting reasons. and it was very predictable.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Killer Joe (2011)
very well done, until the ending messed it up
16 October 2012
first of all: there is violence, there is nudity, there is graphic sexual stuff. if you don't like to see that you shouldn't see this movie.

so this is out of the way.

it's about a lower class family in Texas, almost without education, low income and, as one would expect, primitive characters. this is captured very well in the movie. it is believable and at the same time scary. as it should be. 'killer joe' is more of a educated character which brings a good contrast to said family. but he is also mean and evil, nonetheless with developed (but disturbing) ethics. quite interesting really. some good lines, and very good acting from McConaughey. two scenes with him are outstanding. speaking of the acting: i loved it. the cast is a perfect choice.

i won't go into details of the story, which is quite simple. the story is not what makes this movie interesting. but it has a nice twist which i didn't see coming.

the camera work is great.

the setting is well chosen and they did pay attention to the details.

i also liked the fact that the blood and injuries were not very realistically done. i don't like to see realistic violence. and whoever does should consider therapy. but that's just my opinion.

which brings me to the ending: unfortunately this has messed up the movie for me. it was unnecessarily violent (unlike the rest of the movie) and did not add anything useful to the movie. i am only talking about the last 90 seconds. they really could have done a lot more with that. it seems like whoever wrote this couldn't think of a good ending, then got really drunk and just took the first idea that came to mind.

i rate it 6. with a proper ending it could have been 7-8. too bad.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
21 September 2012
first of all, if you are going to make a movie where most characters are kind of 'weird' or exaggerated like in a fairytale you have to make sure that the story fits the atmosphere you are creating by that. this movie fails to do so. therefore a lot of scenes just seem pointless and boring. creating a comedy this way is even more of a challenge. they shouldn't have gone there. it does not work. it's not funny.

the story is too realistic in a way, and the direction is chaotic (this narrator guy that showed up a couple of times, what was that about?), the characters feel misplaced like taken from another movie (that maybe had a fitting story). i did like the story though, don't get me wrong, it just does not fit.

also there are some nice shots of that island. and i cared enough for the characters to watch until the end. but that was a really tough decision. i was very bored at the same time.

i don't know what the director had in mind, i don't see it. it's a mess, really. a little like in 'hugo cabret' but that story was way more fitting. It reminds me a lot of 'the royal tenenbaums' and i didn't like that one either.

and to make this clear: actors that never smile may be weird (which can be a good thing) but they are also boring, and it greatly reduces the connection the audience can have with them. so if you decide to do that you have to make sure that you can make up for that somehow. personally i find it annoying, and i feel like someone should go see a psychiatrist with them (not for treatment, just diagnosis). if the story allows such thoughts. and it does.

am i repeating myself? alright, i'll stop.

ill give it a 5 because of some interesting dialogs, some really well 'designed' shots, the scenery of the island and a sweet story.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Avengers (2012)
boring, stupid, cliché punchline-thrower
21 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
this is where IMDb needs to react to all those obviously faked reviews. if they don't people will just ignore all 'blockbuster'-reviews. which would call for competition that will take action against this kind of manipulation.

this has never been so obvious than with the avengers. this movie does not deserve a rating above 4. the plot is uninspired and boring, has no twists and everyone knows where it's going. the dialog feels very scripted. characters in comic books for 5-year-olds maybe talk like that. superheroes don't. the acting is very unnatural, it feels very staged and no emotion is being transported to the audience. the characters aren't developed, they just get different punchlines to throw at the audience. the cgi is really bad, not worthy of a movie of 2012. i think even '2001 - A Space Odyssey' (1968) had better special effects.

it seems that they spent almost all their money on the actors, forgot about the story and just used the cheapest cgi they could get. the rest of the money they used for marketing and creating a hype (as i said, this is obvious here on IMDb).

the whole thing is just cheap. but we will see more of this if people continue to make this kind of movie profitable. and this will probably be the case, so expect more of these.
140 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
stupid and pointless
14 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
the only scary thing about this movie is the fact that there are people out there who like this kind of movie.

the story is really dumb. the elements do not have any connection. instead they are throwing 'cool looking' stuff in your face every few minutes. without explaining anything. you might enjoy this if you are used to turn off your brain when watching movies. otherwise it's just confusing. some say this is supposed to be a parody but i didn't see that. mostly because it just wasn't funny for me. also the plot is unbelievable in many ways. they could have got away with it if they cared to explain some basic elements. but they didn't. acting was OK. special effects were fine too. same for camera work.

but it's really a mess. and your head would probably be a mess too if you tried to actually put together what you are seeing. it's impossible. i don't know who thinks of a plot like this but they must've been on some really shitty drugs.

so i guess you can enjoy this movie if you like pointless horror-movies that forget about the plot and just try to impress with images and violence. but for me this does not work. i just get bored and offended by that kind of movies. it will also help if your attention span is no longer than 3 minutes. because then you won't notice how stupid the whole thing really is.

you really have to read the 'hated it'-reviews first nowadays. with all the 'stealth marketing' going on it seems that IMDb ratings aren't as reliable as they used to be.
23 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
21 June 2012
i am usually really trying to find bad things about movies. but this one just did it right. and that's rare. i don't really know what to write about this one. it's just done right. the acting is good, the actors are well chose and do a good job. the story will make you think and it has a very memorable twist. one which is not expected, at least not by me. and i am usually good at that.

camera work was not noticeable for me and that's the best you can achieve. you see what you have to see. not more.

but it is not really a comedy. there are some parts that made me laugh but it was dark and not that funny. exactly how i like it.

just a quick warning: if you are used to a lot happening on the screen, a lot of suspense and twists, this might not be for you. they are telling a story and at times this has to be slow. that's life, you know. not always fast paced. you may also not find it very funny. it is actually quite serious. but also not too serious to just have negative emotional impact on the audience. that's one of the real challenges in movie making. and they succeeded. at least for me.

10/10 because i cant think of anything they could have done better. but it's not for everyone. which is a positive aspect for me, because i usually don't like movies that are made 'for everyone'.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Project X (2012)
3 June 2012
yeah, sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

believable characters and a story that's not much but just enough. it is a comedy after all. but with some serious relationship-stuff that is also just serious enough to keep the party going. that's actually really well done, as it is not so easy to combine those elements.

it is at some points exaggerated, the way a party would never look like in reality (which is actually too bad, but that's the way it is) but that's OK, as i said, it is a comedy.

the acting is great. they are actually having a good time there. it doesn't feel 'acted' in any way. they also got the influence of drugs right. which is definitely not easy.

i loved it. people having fun, celebrating life, with some top party-music. the party footage is brilliant. you get the feeling you're actually there. it also helps that the camera-man is part of the story. but you forget about that guy just enough to get into it. at the end they remind you of him again. which is a brilliant move.

best time I've had with a movie in a long time.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Grey (2011)
boring, overused concept, stupid characters, unrealistic plot
29 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
OK a few people are dropped into an unknown environment and have to survive while they are being threatened by an evil force. this has been done hundreds of times and has been done a lot better than this.

so, as anyone can suspect, one by one gets killed until the main character remains. and the ending is a more of a cliffhanger, and stupid and boring.

in order to get into the movie it would have to be believable. this is not. the characters act unbelievably stupid, the wolves unbelievably unnatural. the dialog apparently was added after the script has been done, so it seems to be just pushing the story the way it's intended to go, and nothing else. even though that way is very stupid. so the dialog is too.

the wolves seem to be some kind of evil demons sent by the devil and have nothing to do with real wolves. that's where the movie lost me completely. i could think of a few ways that group out in the wilds could have survived. but they chose not to go there. they apparently wanted to give the camera some nice footage. it really seems that way. if you got any brains.

the movie is also often interrupted by some pointless scenes that show the main character with some lost love of his. this is totally misplaced and desperately reaching for emotions.

the acting is fine, it's also technically good, except for the wolves(!), and some shots are really impressive. but that's not helping much.

you don't miss out on much if you don't see this one.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
sherlock holmes? where?
15 April 2012
this movie is a(nother) disappointing proof of the impression that most of the money in movie business is in the hand of the wrong people.

this has nothing to do with anything anyone would associate with the sherlock holmes that has been main character of real literature. there is no connection visible whatsoever to that kind of clever developed character.

dialog is stupid, unrealistic and scripted to a point that makes it unbelievably disappointing that the makers obviously think that the audience is completely dumbed down and wont recognize a pile of verbal garbage that is desperately modified to sound good.

characters are completely unbelievable, shallow and exaggerated in a way one would expect to see in a comic movie. with the difference that in those movies the components fit together to create something interesting at least. this movie fails miserably there. it's a mess.

story is non existent, calling it an excuse for the action scenes would give it too much credit. they are not even trying to do that.

the action scenes you would expect from a super-hero movie. and that's what it actually is. it's iron man in medieval times without that metal suit trying to do some kind of parody of sherlock holmes. this is the only point of view that would make it work somehow.

the actors are trying but it's a pointless effort with this direction and script.

there is a lot more that is just wrong about this movie. i don't have words for it at the moment. it feels like the mess that they call movie has left my brain in a similarly messed up state.

i am actually shocked to see this average rating it has at the moment. it cant be right. it just cant.
41 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Ledge (2011)
very predictable, cheesy, cliché-ridden movie
15 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
please don't read this if you don't want spoilers. the movie is very dependent on the viewer not knowing what will happen.

it took me about 10 minutes to realize how the movie would end and what (very trivial) message it would be trying to send here. will he do it or not? will love and/or altruism win over the will to live? this is not a very interesting question. in reality everyone wants to survive. at the face of death more than 90 percent of the people will value their own lives higher than anyone else's. and that's exactly why i knew what will happen in this movie. in detail.

and because this is all such a cheesy and lame thought that would be the drive of this movie it really threw me off there. i just thought "if i'm right then the guy who wrote this should be forced to eat his own script" it made me a little angry that the conclusion is at the end and would put the whole movie in perspective, so i had to stay and watch.

the acting was decent, although the oh-so-innocent, shy, almost-whispering little liv tyler was really too much. but in that role she was OK. it's really the script's fault. and there you can add the cliché Christian fundamentalist as a husband and that cliché over-sensitive feminine loverboy, who happens to look like he's been taken out of a teenage girl's dream. and he acts this way. but it's all believable in their little stereotype way. it's just plain boring. and because of all the stereotype characters i didn't feel any connection to them.

this movie will be one that boyfriends get dragged into by their girlfriends. so the girlfriend gets a chance to say "isnt he sweet, it's so sad, what an emotional movie, i hope you would do the same for me.." and other crap. I'm still waiting for the movie where the girl dies for the boy in heroic selflessness. but i guess girls only want to dream about their personal hero as some kind of toy they could own, but would never do the same for him. (now that would be a movie by the way: girl just lets her love die to save herself. that's a message i would accept)

anyway, this movie is for girls. to keep them dreaming. in that way it will have negative effects on relationships. but that's of course not the movie's fault. it's the lack of brains in some chicks. which can easily be exploited and turned for the worse. that's what the movie really delivers.

i almost forgot: of course we do have a second hero character for the girls. the faithful husband who gets cheated on and for whatever reasons does nothing. he's living on like nothing happened. so, in conclusion, men should die for the woman, and if it doesn't come to that they should at least tolerate that their wives are cheating on them and that they're raising the kids of some dude who screwed their wife. that's what men do these days, it would seem. and the women are of course victimized. their actions don't matter in the movie. they get pushed around by circumstances or people, without showing some kind of own will or personality.

i just hate having to watch all of these clichés put in an uninspired script with a cheesy and stupid message.

avoid this if you are a man. and avoid this if you are a woman who is living in the real world.
15 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tron (2010)
just about the money. cold and greedy fail.
17 March 2011
this movie was made for making money. for my review i actually could just repeat this sentence over and over, and it would sum up all the bad things of this one. but i will explain a little:

good film makers tell you a story. they have some kind of a vision, of how the movie should look like, of the desired impact on the audience and of the technical approach. not in this one. it is a shameless, heartless, uninspired, cold, shallow copy of the original with the single intent of making money, quick and, what's even more important, without risking anything. they follow the recipe that has worked (not) for other shameless copies or unnecessary, failed sequels. and this recipe consists of visual effects, stupid dialog (we don't want to ask too much of the stupid part of the audience, which is the majority and therefore more $ involved), 'cool' acting (which i hate), placing a lot of brands in the movie to make even more money, plus some little emotional part for the women, a bad guy, a fight, some stupid background story and a sh*tload of advertising. it works every time. and it's evidence that the people of this world are getting dumber by the day.

i wouldn't be that angry if this was just some stand-alone movie. but this is supposed to be at least as good as the original. otherwise it's pointless to even make it...that is, if the makers would have some self respect and some sense of responsibility. which they haven't. they only know greed.

i wont even bother to evaluate different aspects of the movie. it fails on so many levels, characters, dialog, plot, acting...it all lacks inspiration, passion, and heart.

go watch the original tron. even the special effects look better in that one, better in way that it shows that they put some thought into it. in legacy they didn't. they just took the first design as making another one would have been too expensive i.e. would have reduced profit.

legacy is just a cash machine. avoid it. you're getting robbed. not only of your money, but also of your time, and if they get you to like this crap, they also robbed you of your brain and heart, if you had one to begin with.

i have to make a small addition: i did not watch the whole movie. i barely made it to half of it. i walked out when that boy-man entered 'the grid'. everything up to this point was stupid, but at this point i realised they even failed at capturing what 'the grid' was all about. it could only get worse. and so it did, as my friends told me. and about those 'positive' reviews on IMDb: those are part of the sh*tload of advertising which i mentioned above. at least some of it.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this