Reviews written by registered user
maddog-50

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

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

Gravity (2013)
86 out of 168 people found the following review useful:
Gravity for your eyelids, 5 October 2013
2/10

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)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Cloverfield meets E.T. meets The Goonies, for Hillbillies from the master of allusion, 25 August 2013
1/10

*** 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!

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
What a lazy trash!, 21 July 2013
1/10

*** 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
3/10

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.

21 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Shyamalan tried his best,, 8 June 2013
1/10

*** 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...

100 out of 250 people found the following review useful:
Again: This is NOT Star Trek!, 8 May 2013
1/10

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...

Oblivion (2013/I)
11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Maybe it's premature..., 27 April 2013
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

...but i would call this already a typical Kosinski: derivative, unoriginal, uninspired and dumb. Ironically, Oblivion locks more like an artificial reality than Tron:Legacy does. The visuals are technically intriguing but nothing can help to camouflage the incredible amount of derivative moments: electronic score by M83 (almost sounds like Tron) and a lot of concepts and ideas from A Space Odyssey,Blade Runner, Avatar, the Matrix, Tron (of course...), etc.. Even Tom Cruise copies himself by wearing modeling jumpsuits and sunglasses, racing on bike, running like Tom Cruise, stiff and measured like in Collateral, etc. Oblivion is like a copy of copies of good ideas from others and Kosinski seems to believe that a different packaging makes a different product. The problem is, if you superglue so many different ideas without any narrative talent, the whole thing get's really dumb and boring because you do not really know what or who and what's all about. And that is quite surprising because the story should be very simple to tell considering how unoriginal it is.

Déjà vu, confused by the movie, confused why a production with that budget couldn't find a better writer and director, confused why Kosinski got this job after he messed up the Tron franchise so badly... let's obliviate this one.

Predators (2010)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Antal should only do cheap porn from now on..., 27 January 2013
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

...because this is one, too: All actors 'accidentally' come together at one place and they have basically no idea why, or so to say, the writers saw no need, to let the 'characters' tell any reasonable explanation why they are there almost naked (for instance, just to take a shower *cough*). All what the actors know is, that they are going to f* each other, or in Monsieur Antal's case: all the characters know and all the audience is let to know is that they gonna shoot & fight for rest of the movie.

The cast as such therefore is usually totally random and because of that usually ridiculous wrong. Adrien Brody with his bath keeper body for the poor really is only lacking the porn mustache whereas the only nature of his character that really matters, is the size of his gun. The rest of the cast is just playing some roles husks where it is actually absolutely irrelevant what they are, because, they all got f*... er killed anyway.

So Antal converts the set 'with a non moving sun at another planet' into a orgy of cheap violence with absolutely no suspense, because everybody knows exactly what is going to happen next.

All that, in proper porn style, is accompanied by music from the retort to minimize the costs, in Antal's case, the rehashed Alan Silvestri score. If this would be not enough, cheap CGI and a ton of stolen dialogs and scenes from another movie (also called 'Predator', but which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this cheap porn trash here) will do the rest.

I have NO idea, what retards gave Antal the job to do this abysmal flick and what retards thought, that this would be a continuation of the franchise. The fact that this p.o.s of a movie still made enough money to break even shows, that the franchise is still strong enough to survive talentless hacks like Antal, which is good! But, please listen to me: let this Antal guy NEVER do a movie this budged again, if you know what i mean...

Skyfall (2012)
386 out of 642 people found the following review useful:
Again: This NOT Bond, Mrs. Broccoli..., 2 November 2012
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

this time it's getting even worse than Quantum Of Solace. The story is lame and stupid, the nonsense plot is build around a melodramatic inside view of Bond's psyche. O.K., when Bond is no bigger than life daredevil anymore, it seems to be a logical consequence, to let the audience learn more about the "true" psyche of Bond. But this is completely crap in my eyes!

An other complacent try by Mrs. Broccoli to revitalize the dusty genre of spy movies. But the audience was always smarter and realized, of course, that Bond never was realistic. The audience does not need to be educated in the direction of a more temporary 21st. century Bond by some filmmakers who do not want become suspects of doing the same thing all over again. Bond WAS always the same for 40 years till Albert Broccoli died and his very very untalented daughter took over the franchise automatically. This happens when you bequeath a business,there is no warranty that your children are going to handle it well.

The real Bond is a classical archetype male and a chauvinistic, arrogant womanizer with a very dangerous job (secret agent), no woman can withstand although she knows what a heart breaker he is. This worked for 40 years and would have worked for another 40 years or so. The Bond we knew until Craig appeared might not be the type of man radical left-wing Eco-activist broads would like to welcome to their sit-in.

Fact is, the real Bond is dead!

This is a private version of Mrs. Broccoli's fantasy Bond 008, a guy who deeply comprehends women instead of bumping them before they can count to three (which might be a challenge for some real Bond girls...). Of course it's intended not to be "your dirty old father's" Bond. It's a Bond for the masses not for the classes, offering a bit of everything the average movie goer under 20 (Twilight-fans) might want to consume.

Craig's Bond has become a sissy, who has a complex oedipal relationship to elder women, especially to those he calls "M". Now, in Skyfall, we will learn that "M" is for "mother"...

There really was no need to change the Bond franchise so completely, except to squeeze out some dollars more out of the franchise. R.I.P. 007!

Slither (2006)
highly underrated, 21 October 2012
10/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A straightforward reminiscence to the golden age of cheesy horror flicks. No overblown cinematography, no dark blueish color tones, no pseudo psycho plot twists to "unforeseen" surprises, no paranormal activity sh-it. It's pukey, mucosanguineous and its naive brutality seems to originate from a wet Beavis and Butt-Head fantasy after having too much beers. So it's sarcastically funny and very effective by putting the quite obscene horror directly in your face, there no room for your fantasy, either you like it, or you find it disgusting. If you watch it with other people it's getting even more funny when some start to get upset about the nastiness of some scenes. A gem of the genre, not only for insiders.


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