Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
42 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

105 out of 202 people found the following review useful:
A Long Time Ago . . ., 16 December 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

... but somehow it's unfortunately real in the present. I am completely shocked. My worst concerns came true. But to be honest to myself: what should i have expected from the master of empty and shallow mystery boxes, Jar Jar Abrams?? The talentless hack who gave us completely retarded movies like Super8 (train wreck) or Star Trek (Power Rangers on Warp speed)

Remember the discussion about the childish stupid design of Kylo Ren's light saber? This was one of the first hints, how badly Jar Jar Abrams gonna screw this up .

Everything that was halfway plausible in the original movies (no Midi-chlorians, of course)is now crippled to a chowder of references, obviously with the purpose to expand the range of the target audience from 5-95 y. (To be fair, yes Lucas did similar by including the Ewoks, but it made sense somehow).

Here, everything comes from the "wouldn't it be cool if" think tank. E.g. Han Solo is wearing exactly the same clothes he did 32 years ago. Yeah, how cool is that? Did i mention the stupid light saber design? The large Millennium Falcon escaping from much smaller Tie-Fighters by flying through narrow caverns where the Tie-Fighters crash but not the Falcon. BTW there is no reason, why the Falcon should fly into a Star Destroyer wreck to shake the Tie-Fighters whilst the Falcon can fly much faster than any Tie-Fighter, etc....

Well there's a lot more of it. Wait until you realize, what happened to Luke Skywalker, mysteryyy...not!

This is not your father's Star Wars ... the last time they said this about the reboot of the beloved Star Trek franchise, it was the end of the franchise as we knew it.

40 out of 80 people found the following review useful:
lame copy of very old ideas, 6 October 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

to name a few: Robinson Crusoe, Mission To Mars (2000), Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) whereas Andy Weir's novel is a blatant theft of those ideas as well as it is the script of The Martian, . . . etc.

To give the very unoriginal story some gravity, the prominent cast obviously was the means of choice. This movie was solely developed as a typical Hollywood cash cow with pretty faces and implausibly characters. Scott's attempt of pseudo-realistic 'science' suffers from the same symptoms as it did Prometheus: stupidity on all levels.

Scott said, The Martian is about people of all kind combining their sources and powers. Well, this is quite pathetic for a bunch of very unoriginal ideas glued together. Maybe Scott recently watched some Star Trek episodes or Apollo 13 (1995) to get 'some' inspirations . . .

I guess it's time to avoid Ridley Scott movies from now on.

13 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Bombs at box office for one ... err . . . 4 reasons:, 7 July 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The disastrous miscast of Jai Courtney, Emilia Clarke, Jason Clarke and an equally talentless director named Alan Taylor.

The script was not that bad, Arnold was perfect, the CGI was top-notch, but the movie bombed because there where too many talentless people involved. The quite convoluted plot could have been saved by stronger and more convincing character impressions. With Arnold alone, you could go through plot holes of the size of a bomb crater. But the Terminator naturally isn't there to explain things.

As the counterpart of a robot you certainly need some strong developed characters. Therefore the casting is absolutely vital!

Jai Courtney has the charisma of a cut out cardboard. This talentless hack acts like non-stop posing in front of a mirror whilst looking how pretty his stupid face is. His screen presence is like an empty hull. He has no ability to transport any believable emotion whatsoever. This wannabe James Dean Aussie ruined the Die Hard franchise, and now this one.

Emilia Clarke acts hysterically like a little rookie who freaks out about being in a big big mooovie. She's unable to transport the mixture of emotions which made the Sarah Conner character so great: a deep inner conflict between the life she expected to live as an innocent girl and the apocalyptic world what will be reality very soon where she has to fight for everything.

Emilia Clarke simply and stupidly portraits Sarah Conner as an action figure with a one dimensional vision of the world. That maybe not her fault alone, but i doubt that she could have done it any better. This iconic character was totally out of her range.

Jason Clarke is a terrible miscast as villain. He is nowhere at any time a John Conner. This miscast has the same laughable proportions like Richard Roxburgh as Dracula in Van Helsing . . .

What is it with that talentless Aussie connection here anyway?

So, Kyle Reese is a fashion poser, Sarah Conner an American Idol candidate and John Conner is a car salesman.

The casting director should never work in the business again! It is how one can screw up a casting so badly. The casting ruined the movie completely!

The one-eyed king of that mess is Alan Taylor. Who the f* thought it would be a good idea to let him direct that iconic franchise?? Alan Taylor has absolutely no glue, what the Terminator world is all about, and he didn't understand a fart what made the first 2 Terminator movies so successful. He was not able to bring any deep into the story, he simply directed it as an action vehicle for his star Arnold.

What a very disappointing waste of time. The script had so much potential and Arnold is truly back! Hopefully, when Cameron got the rights back, they are gonna make one final chapter with Arnold.

148 out of 295 people found the following review useful:
Godzilla Begins, 11 June 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

this is a poor attempt of a franchise reboot by mimicking every ingredient which made the - at least first 2 movies - so great but without embedding it in a halfway decent or even new plot.

Everything was made after the typical remake recipe in it's most blatant way: bigger, louder & more. And just as well you can't camouflage that stupid attempt of a pure cash in, the plot itself makes no bones of it either: they engineered new dinos with only one perspective in mind, to make them bigger, louder & more.

Even with the walnut brain of a T-Rex you immediately get a glue, what the movie is all about. And you get what you expect: machine guns & rockets against accidentally made mutant dinos. Even more than that, in an absurd He-man-ish scenery, the hero and brain mutated battle raptors are going to meet the XXL-Rex for an epic final fight. Silver helmets for the raptors with antennas would have completed this B.S. perfectly. Where are the action figures?

What's next in the franchise? You bet!

(epilog: we miss Stan Winston so much!)

Gravity (2013)
87 out of 173 people found the following review useful:
Gravity for your eyelids, 5 October 2013

Open Water in Space, i guess: A lame story which fits on a coaster stretched to the excess before people would get bored to death. All solely carried by visual effects. The problem here, to convey the infinity wideness of space to the audience, you need a reference point, otherwise, all you could show is a black background with little light dots on. Obviously, you have to show the only reference point available over and over again: the Earth from 400 km above, and what you see is more or less the same, for 90 min..

And, honestly, Sandra Bullock in a space suit doesn't give me the slightest impression of what it would mean, to be in such a situation as an astronaut. Either you see a white space suit in front of the Earth, spinning around, or, you see a face from inside the helmet of a space suit.

The 'drama'-plot could be easily translated to someone being captured in a small room anywhere, that the whole thing happens in Space does not make any difference, plot-wise.

The possible ways to get rescued are crystal clear, either someone picks you up or you die. And if this wouldn't be boring enough for the viewer, there's only one possible way to die, no sharks, or whatever...and you can't die from being attracted by gravity! So even the title of the movie is a kind of stupid.

1 extra point for the nice Earth view CGI.

Super 8 (2011)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Cloverfield meets E.T. meets The Goonies, for Hillbillies from the master of allusion, 25 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm a true hater of Jar Jar Abrams way of film making and i tell you why:

Everything Abrams writes is a patchwork of allusions clued together by some light weighted side plots, mainly of inter human structure, to distract the audience from the illogicality and sloppiness of the 'main' plot which typically fits on a coaster. Thereby Abrams pits on the superficiality of curiosity and laziness of the audience, which is a zeitgeist phenomena of modern multimedia times.

Here, there's an alien guy, who was captured by the military years ago, after he crashed his ship somewhere, and then mistreated in cruel experiments by unscrupulous army scientists, he just want's to go 'home', but he can't for some reasons. During a railway crash, he/it could escape and is now chased by the army. Finally because some kind words of a kid, the frustrated and very angry alien guy gains his faith back and decides to fly away in his space ship which only consists of little magnetic cubes and which rebuilds out of them in minutes.

WTF? You might ask yourself right now, well that's the main plot on the coaster.

Your Questions are probably: Why did the railway crash? A.: one of the army scientists who was involved in the cruel experiments has become a partisan supporter of the alien and tries to cause the railway crash with his pickup truck. The train rammed the truck with full speed, the train goes to pieces, the truck with his driver survives the crash somehow. Q.: Why, How? A.: Because it's in the script, the guy is there to tell the audience later what happened to the alien before. Q.: Why is the army transporting that huge super dangerous alien in a container wagon without any high security equipment or delta force guards? A.: It's in the script, otherwise the alien guy couldn't escape.

The alien guy escapes to a near small town, where our Goonie-kids live. There he hides under a cemetery where he builds himself a huge cave labyrinth in 4 months, without ever catching the attention of the village people, for instance by noise or the huge amount of soil he had to clear away. Q.: ??, A.: keep watching, idiot!

To escape from Earth the alien guy needs his ship, or, equivalent, the cubes, which form the ship. Lucky wise, all the cubes he needs were also transported with the train, and lucky wise, were spread all over the place, and, lucky wise or so, he could collect them somehow before the army or anybody else could find them after the crash. Well, ONE cube was found by one of the Goonies. The alien guy, though, puts all his cubes in the water tower of the village meanwhile. Q.: ???, why cubes?, why the water tower? A.: A good place where everybody could see the final scene of the movie and why not cubes, maybe Abrams likes Rubik's cubes *cough*! Q.: But didn't he want to hide himself? Carrying tons of cubes to the best visible place in town, as a spider like huge 5000kg alien might be 'a bit' risky hiding-wise, even at night, above all, the army is chasing you non stop! A.: Yep! Maybe it's so crazy that nobody is expecting it, you know, and that's the alien guy tactics? I dunno!!

One of the Goonies discovers the covert of the alien guy, climbs down in the caves and tells the alien guy to check himself finally to take his ship and go.

Q.: WTF? Why did HE find the covert, why did he climb down?, His ship, what...? A.: 1. He's a Goonie, 2. His girlfriend Pauline was kidnapped by Donkey Kong before, so he tries to rescue her. 3. Even without an universal translator but some telepathy, the motivational words of the kid solved the whole movie. And well, yeah there'r some drama 'serious' plot things going on, the father of the girl is an addicted choleric, the boys mother had died, so these kids are kind of 'aliens' in their world too, other fat boys sister is a slut, bla, bla, all together a 'typical' social scenario of the average Spielberg Americans, we all can identify with (?). BTW, lens flare fanatics will be also very happy again.

Q.: What do Abrams and Spielberg have in common? A.: Spielberg nuked the fridge, Abrams wrecked the train! The both jumped the shark long time ago!

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
What a lazy trash!, 21 July 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Nobody involved in the making of this turd seems to be motivated to do anything creative or intelligent. The storyboard of this disaster movie probably consisted of 3 pencil drawn papers only: Aliens, Los Angeles, Marines.

To make the 'storyline' of this flick out of it was so innovative as a making-a-sentence-out-of-three-word-idiot-test. And guess what, the winning script was "Battle of Los Angeles", yes, you'r right, with aliens and with marines! Glued together somehow by every cliché known to mankind, but only the really stupid once (clichés).

The first question you might ask after seeing this is: who's the friggin' alien who financed this crap? Is he/she from our planet? This movie was so clearly dead on arrival, i would have pulled the plug even the day before premiere.

The invading aliens, for instance, where acting so plain stupid and were equipped so lousy that they never were a threat to anybody, not even for some a brave little group of idiots, allegedly "marines" which has to fight alone against the invasion at Redondo Beach. The rest of the world probably didn't even hear in the news about these dilettantes from outa space. And, yeah you guessed it, even our small group of American heroes like you and me, managed to stop the "invasion" all alone, semper fi mo*f*, hua!

The aliens, BTW, where hydrophilic space-bugs protected with pots and pans and bullet guns with a totally wrong going rifling: the literally ne-ver hit a target with the first shots. They had no flying something, they also stop attacking once for a while, just to give the marines from Redondo Beach enough time to rescue hot chicks, old sacks, and what else, er... maybe some baywatch babes?

You see some card board characters die, all constantly accompanied with a pathetic pseudo dramatic score which gave the whole thing rather a cynically touch than anything else. You know, dying marines like in Black Hawk Down are heart touching, dying underpants models and wannabe actors in a staged mess like this is a blatant insult to every true feeling about those soldiers.

The excessively shaky cam thingy was obviously used as a cost saver than as anything else. Actually, you never see a clear shot of the aliens or the action all together, it's like you want crab the camera man's head, and turn it while yelling at him: "show that, SHOW THAT, you f* idiot!" Needless to say, that the CGI was absolutely lousy too.

Honestly, everyone involved in this abysmal bad movie should be punished for that.

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Superstealers, 17 June 2013

It was obvious, that the reboot of the reboot of the Superman franchise must include a lot more modern ingredients than before. Clark Kent is a guy from the 1930's, at least his costume seems to belong to that era.

So putting the guy in new clothes is one thing, the other is transporting the movie visuals and action in a temporary style that can compete with the latest Marvel universe blockbusters. So what is more obviously and a safe bet than stealing from every movie that fits somehow into the genre: Alien Invasion, INDEPENDENCE DAY, destroying the city: TRANSFORMERS, flying dragons: AVATAR, emotional flashbacks: GLADIATOR. Finally, the whole thing written by Nolan, gives you a - typical Nolan like - confusing and bloated pseudo intellectual story, of a flying Batman - Spider-man bastard thing saving the world of Gotham City or so.

Obviously the whole thing was planed with military precision to be a financial success with the result, that Superman has lost his identity and charm which was probably unavoidable when you try to catapult a 80 year old concept into something fresh.

Snyder bombards the audience with short emotional vs. action pieces without giving you enough time to reflect what kind of feelings he wants to transport. Like in a video game, there are always hints whats coming next so that the gamer/viewer does not get to frustrated with the many - Nolan like - boring lengthily dialogues.

BTW some hints are quite hidden: the fuel tankers from the "LexCorp"...

The cast is quite good except Michael Shannon as Zod, who seems to be somehow rather hysterical than cool and mean. The score by Zimmer is bombastic.

Overall the flick just o.k. with some bad moments.

24 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
Shyamalan tried his best,, 8 June 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

to make this a decent movie, but he was damned to work with with most nepotistic ***hole in Hollywood: Will Smith. He who pays the piper, calls the tune, or he who uses all his connections and money to push his arrogant, totally spoiled and utterly untalented son into one big screen after the other. I literally can smell how Shyamalan felt whilst polishing this turd into something that might be appropriate for that budget. Honestly, i think it needed someone like Shyamalan, a guy who has become a joke in Hollywood but who once was a wunderkind, to make such a movie.

Shyamalan's vanity to show all the critics that he still could do it, paired with the uber-ego of Will Smith was the perfect constellation to make this historically bad flick. Whatever budget was spent on After Earth did not go into the effects, script, casting. BTW, Smith, multi-talented as he is, came up with the story himself.

This movie has such a strong and bizarre connection towards Scientology, even Travolta or Cruise would not have dared to make this junk. Smith has to learn, that his fanatic faith maybe rather move mountains then turn his son into a talented actor. Nuff said. I'm angry that i wasted my money for this. But, hey, the money is not gone, it's just somewhere else...

102 out of 254 people found the following review useful:
Again: This is NOT Star Trek!, 8 May 2013

First let me say that i expect a ridiculous high rating at IMDb (right now, higher than Gandhi, Ben-Hur, Rocky, etc., because all these movies only have a tiny fraction of the awesomeness THIS brilliant masterpiece of epic filmmaking has...*cough*) for this one as well because most of the 'awesome beyond believe' - reviews were done by payed rating agencies!

J.J. Abrams' v(er)(i)sion of Star Trek has absolutely NOTHING in common with the ideas and visions of Gene Roddenberry. Abrams' abilities of story telling are based on two recipes: 1. luring the audience with questions but never giving the answer, 2. it stops after 40 min.. According to the motto, one fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can ever answer, Abrams' stories are therefore the pure exploitation of the curiosity of the audience, leaving you disappointed and empty, because all you got was a patchwork of 40 min pieces, connected by stunningly dumb and unrealistic cliffhangers without any satisfying end. I know that there are many Abrams fan boys out there who like Abrams' 'Lost'- style of storytelling, but folks, it's NOT always like it was for you at school: if you don't understand something, it doesn't mean automatically, that there's something meaningful going on! If there are plot holes, inconsistencies, stupid dialogs, too much pretty people doing too much stupid things and too much action & lens flares in your eyes, then, sometimes, the movie is just plain bad, and nobody understands what's going on, believe me!

Into Darkness is visually (CGI) intriguing which might be the only reason for the targeted audience (8-16 y.o.m) to score that flick as awesome. BTW, Abrams' put some new lenses in his cameras, (almost) no flares anymore... The character development is reduced to action figures in space with every thinkable cliché (dudes can be categorized as cool, cute, nerdy, romantic, tough, chicks are hot, dudes outnumber the chicks which causes some rivalry anyway...) which looks like a cast for a boy/girl group thing. As you might expect then, all there is about equipment, wardrobe, technical details was not designed to be appropriate or functional, but rather to look good & cool somehow. Every story ever written for TNG, TOS is by far more ambitious than this crap from the 'wouldn't it be cool if'-department here.

I do not understand why Paramount decided to reboot the franchise in that way. At least it must have been obvious to them that you can't make a TV series with this reboot and Jar Jar Abrams, which literally would have been 'Lost' in Space.

Let's hope that this reboot thing will only last a couple of movies with 3-4 years intervals AND let's hope that someone at Paramount has enough brains to make another Star Trek series in the sense of Roddenberry and all the true Star Trek fans out there...

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]