Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
12 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Black Sea (2014)
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
This just took the top spot for the most unrealistic submarine movie, 4 June 2015

I never thought it possible, but with "Black Sea" I just found a submarine movie more unrealistic than the infamous "U-571".

Although I have to admit that while "U-571" was so unrealistic that it was completely unwatchable (at least for me), Black Sea is watchable and at times even quite entertaining and suspenseful - just as long as you disregard it's complete lack of any realism whatsoever and view it as a kind of fantasy movie (akin to "Yellow Submarine" by the Beatles), rather than a submarine movie.

And actually the first half an hour or so, where still quite okay and I was positively surprised. My expectation weren't very high, as I have stopped comparing every submarine movie with "Das Boot" as I know that there will never be another movie like that, so I kept my expectations low and was pleasantly surprised and thought that I had finally found another interesting submarine movie that at least wasn't as unrealistic so as to make it completely unwatchable. But after the first 30 minutes any realism went completely over board and sunk like a brick, never to resurface.

But as long as you know absolutely nothing about submarines, or ships in general or even about any basic laws of physics or you choose to completely ignore those thing and just grab your popcorn and go along for the ride, then it is actually quite an entertaining movie. And I also enjoyed the basic premise of the movie.

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Uwe Boll's personal message (of violence) to the world., 27 November 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The plot of the movie is thin and is easy to sum up: A deranged psychopath who kills innocent people for fun and who wears full body armor and carries a ton of guns and a ton of explosives takes the employees of a TV station hostage so as to force them to broadcast his message of violence and anarchy across the world.

There, that really IS the entire plot of the movie. I am surprised myself how easy it is to fit it into one sentence (-: Someone wrote on the message board: "Seemed like the movie an angry goth teen would make for an excuse to show a ton of random innocent people get shot." Which actually sums this movie up quite well.

But what else did you expect from an Uwe Boll movie? But I have to admit that THIS TIME it actually seemed like making money by showing senseless violence wasn't actually Uwe Boll's only intention. This time his movie actually seems to contain an ideological message too. It actually seems like the whole point of this movie was to get Uwe Boll's own little anarchistic message across which coincidentally seems to be exactly identical to the philosophy of any mentally deranged psychopath/anarchist. How do I know that it is Boll's own message? Well he wrote, directed, produced and played a character in the movie. Of course that alone wouldn't be enough to say it is his own message as you could argue that he simply wanted to show us how a psycho-killer/terrorist justifies his violence against innocent civilians as most terrorists indeed do not see themselves as the perpetrators but blame rich people or some government (and the U.S. is usually on top of such a list). So if exposing the mind of a psychopath would have been Boll's intention, he would have done a good job at it.

But that really wasn't his intention. Because for that it would have been enough to give the killer half a minute of screen time go explain his thinking - but Boll gives him like half the time in the movie to explain his "ideology" to us. Also when the killer talks, we see all kinds of newsreel footage that supports his statements. That wasn't done by the TV station in the movie, its not visible to the characters in the movie. Instead those newsreel inserts are actually kinda breaking the 4th wall, as they are only visible to us. Also the way the movie is set up is done so as to give focus to the killer's arguments. The scene where the TV anchor does the interview while being hold hostage himself, could have been an intense climax of the Movie. But Boll intentionally wasted this opportunity to instead have the TV anchor break character and make some weak arguments against the killer. Something a hostage in such a situation would never ever do, because intentionally pissing of the deranged psycho-killer by disagreeing with his stupid hate speech is the last thing a hostage in that situation would do. Also Boll's character even openly agrees with all that the killer says (and Boll is kinda playing himself in this movie anyway as he plays a producer who's only concern is how much money he can make by broadcasting all this violence :-) ) Actually I knew this movie was gonna stink after watching the first few minutes (with Uwe Boll Movies you can usually tell). But when I saw the killer pointing the gun at Uwe Boll I was like "hey this really COULD finally be a great Uwe Boll movie". (-: I guess a lot of people must have thought something like this at that moment (-: But not only does Uwe Boll's character survive, but we have to endure his terrible acting and terrible accent for the rest of the movie )-: And now I finally know that there is something worse than a movie written and directed by Uwe Boll and that is a movie which has Uwe Boll as an actor...

I give it 3 stars out of 10. I actually think it deserves much less, especially with Uwe Bolls trademark camera shakes that have you puzzled over why you feel like vomiting when watching his movies. Is it because of all the violence or is it because the camera guy is obviously an epileptic? But, I have to admit Brendan Fletcher's performance was pretty good. Anyone who can still deliver a halfway good performance when directed by Uwe Boll has my deepest admiration.

God's Army (2000)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Average Drama - but not really answering any of the questions I had regarding Mormons, 6 December 2013

First off, I am obviously not a Mormon, but I also don't have any prejudice against Mormons. The movie was good as a drama. It had it's funny parts and it had it sad parts, just like you would expect from any solid drama - and I have to admit as a drama it WAS solid.

However, as a non-Mormon I naturally DIDN'T watch this movie because I wanted to see a generic Drama... I was watching this movie hoping to learn more about Mormons. But the thing is, the whole point of this movie seems to have been to portray Mormons in a realistic way. As normal human beings, with normal problems, normal fears, normal weaknesses but of course with equally normal human strengths, and normal human compassion. As such the movie might as well have not been about Mormons at all, but just as well about any other ordinary Americans.

As such I was kinda disappointed. I was hoping I would learn what made Mormons unique, instead I only learned what made them ordinary. And since I neither regarded them as saints nor as devils, them being ordinary isn't really that much of a surprise to me.

Instead I was hoping the movie would answer some of the questions I had regarding Mormons, like for example how they would deal with someone who brings up the argument that native Americans are not descendants of middle eastern Europeans and that this has been proved through DNA testing. Since there are no Mormons in my area (I live in Europe - so the whole "Did you know that Jesus came to America?" thing doesn't really get people's attention here) I would have been interested in hearing their answer to those issues, since so far I was only able to hear the accusations of their critics, but not how the Mormons would respond to it. And in the beginning it looked like I was in the right movie, since the movie started raising those questions right from the start, but instead of answering those questions and having the Mormons in the movie really respond to those issues, they just raise the questions, and then drop them unanswered in mid air. The only response to the criticisms that we get from the Mormons in the movie is either to totally devastate their believe to the point that they themselves quit being Mormons, or they manage to stay Mormons by totally ignoring everything that is questionable and simply categorically calling everything that is questioning the Mormons historical accuracy "garbage" and lies, throwing books by critics in the trash and throwing the kitchen table over in a rage if somebody leaves because of "the garbage" like the Mormons in this movie did.

Since I never met Mormons, I don't know if they are really like that. But I would like to think that in real life they are not like this and that they won't get in rage and have some perfectly logical explanation for all those critics out there , and that the movie is at fault for portraying them wrong... I would like to think that... but only having this movie to rely on and living in a place without any Mormons, I guess I will never know now.

Hanussen (1988)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Great performance by Brandauer, 31 October 2013

The acting by Klaus Maria Brandauer as Hanussen is top notch. He carries this movie. And all in all I really enjoyed it.

Only the title is a little misleading. Because I never got the feeling it portrays the historic Hanussen. But then again movies seldom stay true to history. But at least they got all the major events right and even Hanussen's stage performance and probably his charisma...

But his character... well, I just feel that he wasn't the kind of person that is being portrayed in this movie - AT ALL! This movie portrays him as an opponent of the Nazis, when in reality he was more of a supporter who fell out of favor due to factional infighting and some miscalculated movies on Hanussen's part.

A lot of people have noticed this and many have asked why he is being portrayed in a purely positive light and as an opponent of the Nazis when in reality he was more like one of Hitler's most important supporters at the time. Personally I think they intentionally altered this aspect. Consider it German censorship. As you can clearly see by watching this movie, German censorship works very different than U.S. censorship. Germans have no problems with displaying tons of unnecessary nudity, sex, alcohol, drug use and swearing - sometimes even in children's movies. But having the protagonist of a movie be a leading Nazi? And on top of that a Jewish Nazi? No way! People in Germany of 1988 weren't ready for that kinda stuff.

In 2007 the Germans made a movie called "My Führer" which also seems to be VERY loosely based on Hanussen. Only this time they finally included scenes of him actually teaching Hitler - something they obviously weren't yet ready for in 1988.

So I actually kinda liked Klaus Maria Brandauer's "fictional" Hanussen more than the historic one - he is definitely more sympathetic. So as long as you separate the Hanussen portrayed in "Hanussen" from the historic Hanussen, then it is a very enjoyable and touching story.

Oh and I feel I have to note that the English subtitles I had aren't exactly the most accurate. A lot of times the subtitles seem to say something completely different than what is being said in German. And while the acting of Klaus Maria Brandauer is awesome, the acting of some of the supporting characters is awful. Now this sounds like a lot of criticism, but actually the movie is still pretty awesome and truly deserves 9 out of 10. If you liked movies like "The Prestige" or "The Illusionist" then this is a must watch!

Frankenstein (2007) (TV)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
I think this is my new favourite Frankenstein version...., 5 August 2013

I always thought it would make sense to set the story in modern times, since now we truly have the technology to do stuff like that. But more importantly (like Frankenstein) we are too obsessed with science and lack the moral and ethical restraint that would prevent us from doing such things.

So I think it fits great into modern times... but I always imagined a modern Dr. Frankenstein to look somewhat like Gunther von Hagens... (-; But I also like their take on it and the way they told the story it made sense to have a "Victoria Frankenstein" instead of a "Victor". And also the film of course by it's very nature of putting it in a present day setting naturally can't stay 100% true to the book. But still, I think it wasn't any less true to the book than the bulk of the other film adaptations and the ending was better and more realistic than in most other film adaptations.

And I love that even though every Frankenstein movie is always very different, they still always have little references to the previous movies. Like in this one it's the tank, which is very similar to the 1994 as well as the 1910 version. And let's not forget the infamous "It's alive!" line as well as the lightning, the electrical surge, the bolts and the cap. (those things are all references to the other movies, as they are not present in the book)

Anyway, go give this version a chance... you won't regret it.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
If you hate Twilight, you gonna love this!, 19 May 2013

This is how a vampire movie should be. It is very dark and grim and what makes it frightening is that it's realistic. Christopher Walken is great in this and the role is perfect for him. Lili Taylor is great too. But what really makes it stand out is the story as well as the cinematography. It's not really a vampire movie. It reminded me more of movies like "Requiem for a Dream". But it's not just a movie about drug abuse either, nor is it simply a philosophical movie.

I must have watched this movie like 20 times (since it came out back in the day). And each time I watch it, it's interesting because I discover something new and interpret it in a new way.

Nowhere in the movie does it mention that they are vampires. We just ASSUME they are vampires cause that is what we are expecting and that is how they look and behave. But then again they also look and behave like drug addicts and/or rapists.

The movie starts with the question of why and how people are capable of war crimes, rape and other atrocities... and in the course of the movie you learn how and why.

The ending is very interesting and had me thinking quite a bit before I figured it out. Of course I won't tell you... go watch it yourself. If you like horror movies that make you think about them and that don't need special effects to scare you, than this is well worth your time.

Animal Farm (1999) (TV)
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Best adaption in my view. Definitely beats the 50's propaganda movie, 6 December 2012

The movie is great... yes it extended the story a bit and updated it a bit so as to extend the allorgy to today's Communist countries. But I think, if Eric Arthur Blair was living today, he would have done the same. It was still true to the book and the original message (as opposed to the 50's movie which sucked).

Oh and fables have ALWAYS been regarded as being made for children when in reality they where NEVER made for children - it's just that some adults are too stupid to get what it is really about. So, no this is definitely not for children - well at least children should not be regarded as the target audience.

Besides, I love Patrick Stewart and Peter Ustinov.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Unless you are a hardcore fan, you can safely skip this one., 29 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love Outer Limits. Overall it is a great show with some of the best writers and many awesome episodes. But this episode is not one of those episode. Every show, no matter how good it is overall has some weak episodes.

Like the other reviewer already said, this episode felt very rushed. The acting was passable at best. And at times the acting was plain bad - so bad that I had trouble following what's going on. The special effects where even worse. The twist at the end... well (here comes the spoiler) the entire twist, is that there is no twist. Things are exactly what they appear to be, making this one of the most boring episodes.

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Among the best Outer Limits episodes - and it's not really about Humans and Aliens, 19 October 2012

What I am gonna say now, may not sound like it's relevant to the episode, but it is and if you saw it you will know.

My family is German and my grandfather always told me about how there used to be German villages in Bessarabia and how he grew up in one of those villages. At the time those villages belonged to neither Germany or the Soviet Union. All the people in those villages where farmers, none of them where Nazis. A few of them where drafted as soldiers, but they all served in the Romanian army, since technically they were all Romanians. A deal between Hitler and Stalin (during the beginning of WWII when Germany and the USSR fought together and invaded neutral countries together) gave those villages to Stalin, so the Red Army attacked Romania and destroyed all those villages, so my family had to flee to Germany (anyone who remained was put into soviet labor camps). It was difficult for my family in Germany and they where not really accepted as Germans and where put into refugee camps where the conditions where harsh. But they where promised that (since Germany had sold their land and farms to the Soviet Union) they would be compensated accordingly and would receive new land and new farms. They had to wait a couple of years, but then they where finally given the land and farms they where promised. What they didn't know is that those used to belong to polish settlers that where driven away by the Wehrmacht with many of them being put into labor camps. Naturally the polish weren't happy about that and decided to strike back. So one day the Polish massacred the entire village with my grandfather being the only survivor.

Why did I tell you that? Well I didn't just tell you my family history, I told you what this episode is about. Of course it's not necessarily about presumed Nazis and polish resistance fighters, it could be about anybody, and that's the point.

We hate what we fear, and we fear what we don't understand.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Very good episode! Not the best, but close., 18 October 2012

Almost every Outer Limits episode has Robots, time travel or Aliens in it. Except that it's never really about any of these things.

Just like with this episode; on the surface it's your typical Outer-Limits-body-snatcher-invasion-story, but in reality its a dark tale about prejudice. Written by A L Katz who wrote just about every Tales from the Crypt episode, this episode could also pass as a Tales from the Crypt episode, and a good one at that. It's scary, it's got a sick and twisted humor and it's got a bleak, but poetic ending.

The only thing I missed where the Crypt Keepers sadistic comments at the end, but then again the Outer Limits control voice more than makes up for that.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]