Gullytrotter

Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (2002)

5 seconds of boobs were the only scenes worth seeing.

When I decided to watch this flick, I already had a hunch that it would stink. There were enough hints in the Web and from people I know personally to tell me that. But I didn't care. The Megalodon has somehow fascinated me ever since I learned of its (former) existence as a child. I always wanted to see this giant shark in comparison to a human - not just as a drawing in a book.

Well, this movies really does stink. And with that I mean just about every aspect. The dialogs themselves and the related editing are of a quality you find in cheap porn movies. After just about every dialog-scene you expect to see a girl go to her knees for (the obvious). The voices sound pathetic and some actors even seem to have trouble remembering their single-liners!

This is the kind of movie where you repeatedly want to shout "Bull!" at the screen. The actions and reactions of the characters are just too pathetic, sharks bitten in half by the giant monster shark are later seen in one piece lying on the beach and so on. In many cases the actions of the victims are likely to cause an accident even without the shark around (like driving a speedboat while drunk).

The one pretence I had (seeing Megalodon in comparison with humans) wasn't fulfilled. The special effects were just too corny. They might as well have used scenes from Futurama. I mean really, nobody would have noticed. There were so many scenes taken from other footage like documentaries. The lighting and colour balance was completely different, but what the heck? Nobody will notice. Or did they?

Normally, I don't really care much for boobs in movies, because they are usually there to distract from the flaws. In Shark Attack 3 the flaws are big enough to make the few seconds with boobs and pretty girls the only scenes worth seeing. And I can hardly believe I just wrote that!

At first, I couldn't really understand, why there are so many reviews stating that their authors laughed throughout the whole movie. When I think about it, I can understand them quite well now. I mean, where else can you learn so many unique things? Here is a rather incomplete list:

• Megalodon is a morphing shark that can change its size depending on what it wants to swallow, like a person, a boat or whatever.

• Although Megalodon's teeth look nearly exactly like the teeth of a great white (apart from the size), a crappy digital photo of one baby tooth (without anything to compare its size to) is enough to let one (and only one) paleontologist identify the animal within a second.

• The first thing every paleontologist does during a "non-break" at night is read the shark forum.

• Megalodon could survive in the very dark and rather foodless deep sea trenches for at least 1.6 million years, even though all evidence makes Megalodon a fast-swimming predator that hunts close to the surface by sight when its prey is near and has a metabolism to match (Megalodon is considered to be one of the Lamnidae, which is the same family as the great white and mako shark).

• If you take a photo of a shark's tooth, it doesn't matter that you are holding and covering it on one side with your fat thumb. The camera will still get the complete tooth.

• Digicams only catch the main motive, none of the background.

• Text in the internet is always in big coloured letters.

• Divers take along their dogs so they can play Frisbee with them on the beach after diving.

• If a creature which is supposed to be extinct suddenly shows up (thus not being extinct and an actual scientific sensation), even the scientists will want to kill the animal (with a torpedo).

• Mini-subs that from the outside look about the size of a portable toilet have enough room inside for two seats, a place to put on a diving suit, an air lock and even room to spare for a small BBQ-party.

• Submarines are controlled by game pads.

• Fitting an unarmed mini-sub with a torpedo-launcher that could sink a battleship is a small task for an otherwise boring afternoon.

• A 20m shark can attack a 100m superyacht making it shake as if it would capsize any second, although the difference in weight between the fish and the boat is like an ant kicking a brick.

• When your yacht is being attacked by a giant monster shark, the first thing you'll want to do is go outside and climb up to the slippery places without any railing, just to make sure you fall into the water the next time the shark gives the boat a thump. If for some reason you don't fall into the water, JUMP! After all, the water is much safer than a giant yacht if a hungry shark is around.

• Mexico is somewhere in south-east Europe.

• Attacking sharks make weird creepy sounds with their voice.

• Girls that have to be saved from the giant shark have been rubbed down with olive oil to make them too slippery to save.

• A torpedo that could sink a battleship blows the shark and the sub it was launched from to kingdom come while leaving a human who is close enough to smell the shark's fish-breath uninjured (apart from a good shake down).

If you want a boring laugh, go watch it. The fact that one dirty pick-up line is the only thing that ever got known about this movie should give you a hint. Even the synopsis on the DVD-cover is completely wrong!

Chasseurs de dragons (2008)

Almost brilliant

When you start watching this animation-masterpiece, you quickly notice, that it's a European production. Although the Europeans have (sadly) integrated some of the clichés you would normally find in an American production of this kind, most are missing. One of these is that there is an overwhelming evil that only our (very few and very unlikely) heroes can vanquish. Another is that one of the group is only in the business for the money, is greedy, runs away when the heat is up but somehow gives in to his better nature. This movie would have been better off without both.

The movie is based upon a TV-Series that was out four years before the movie. Unlike the movie, the TV-Series is a cartoon and not a computer animation. At first I thought the computer would kill the charm and character of the plot but I was quickliy convinced: Whoever did the animation knew his or her stuff! Although the characters are obviously fictional (in stills they don't even look real), they seem as alive and sentient as the audience following their quest. Making characters who by "normal" standards could be considered deformed (those micro-legs could never carry that giant body let alone make it jump) so alive and lovable is more than "just a highlight"! The creation of the world is another masterpiece. Not so much because of its looks but because of the inventiveness of it. The world our heroes travel is not solid like our own but is made of many pieces of land varying in shape and size that seem to be floating in mid air. When a person steps on a smaller fragment of ground, it nods a little bit as if feathering from the weight. In some cases up and down no longer apply but our heroes still manage to get a foothold somewhere. Although the world of floating islands is completely surreal, in this movie it is absolutely believable and after a short time it doesn't seem any weirder than running into a car somewhere in New York.

I wrote that the looks of the world aren't as breathtaking as the idea. As true as that might be to my mind, the quality of the world, the characters and the attention to details is staggering. Although the faces of the characters have relatively few attributes, emotions can be read as clearly as in Sean Connery's or Dustin Hoffman's face. The world around the characters is wonderfully colourful and no two settings are alike. The background is always in motion, something is always going on which makes the world seem even more alive. If you stop the movie and look at the background you will be surprised how many details you can find.

The existence of Hector actually puts the cherry on top. Hector is a furry little "thing" (possibly the equivalent of a dog in our world) who is totally lovable and extremely funny. Although he isn't really important for the main plot, he would be missed like Scrat would be in Ice Age. The really cool thing about Hector is that you need to speak Gibberish to understand him.

If the movie is so great, why didn't I give it 10 stars? Well, the plot in itself was rather thin. Two hunters are sent out to rescue the world from a really bad dragon who wants to swallow the world, isn't really original. That in itself wouldn't be much of a problem. What I missed was the background information. What kind of a dragon was this and why did it look that way? I love mythical stories but if they get too thin then they seem to be written after the movie is finished in a feeble attempt to give the whole thing some depth.

Another thing I didn't like was Zoé. Although a little girl like her could be considered adorable, she was somewhat of a pain in this movie. She seemed pretty resistant to all types of learning about reality, kept dreaming of some hero from a story book and basically slowed the others down. She would have been OK if she had developed a little more and a little earlier in the movie - or had been less of a girly to start with. To me the idea of this girl who was there to twist the story a little backfired on the writers.

All in all, this is a really good movie for just about all ages.

Street Kings (2008)

Really average

Before I sat down to write this review, I read a few of the reviews here in the IMDb and actually watched to movie. Now I am wondering if all the other reviewers did the same. Sure, there are differences in taste and there are probably also different interpretations about when a cop is dirty. Somehow, I just can neither share the super-dooper ratings nor the really bad ones.

To me, Detective Tom Ludlow isn't really a dirty cop. He doesn't deal drugs or commit any other crime for his own benefit. Instead he is a bit more the kind of hero we all love from Marvel movies and comics: He takes the law into his own hand.

Apart from one twist that I didn't see coming (although I am normally quite good at guessing the outcomes of rather transparent stories), the whole thing is pretty thin. The storyline could have been summed up within a 30-minute short-movie, just about all of the rest is mostly pointless shooting and violence. I am not in general a person who is against violence in movies, but I don't find it very entertaining as end in itself. As an example, I really liked the computer game Deus Ex but I didn't like Serious Sam.

What really bugged me most was that all stereotypes of American cops had to be taken up (again). Police men have a problem with conduct, only just respect their superiors, have lost their wife some way or another, don't seem to have anything worth calling a home and either smoke like hell, drink or both. You bettcha, Reeves plays a cop who does it all. It almost boils down to Reeves as a bum with a gun and a fast car who seems to be on the better side of the law.

Most of the acting was atrocious, which could also be a result of the script and the exceptionally flat characters that wound their way all through the movie. There were two exceptions: Hugh Laurie (who seemed a bit too much like 'House' for my taste) and Naomie Harris (who played Linda Washington). The role of the latter was rather small but at least acted well, even if the widow who comes around is in itself a rather dumb idea - especially for the meager interactions their were between Reeves and her. Speaking of those, Tom Ludlow was the former Partner Linda Washington's Husband, it seems a little strange to me, that Tom would address her as Mrs Washington.

Normally, Forest Whitaker is really good at his job. But like his role in 'The Shield', this one doesn't really fit him and the result is that both characters seem very much alike although they should have nothing to speak of in common. Whitaker's character packs a good punch which seems somewhat out of place in comparison with the rest of the role. This is not so much Whitaker's problem (who did great in Ghost Dog) but a problem with the role itself. Chris Even's Character had a similar problem as it was never too sure where he stood and what his agenda really was. Basically, Evans and Whitaker suffered from roles who's pieces just didn't fit together. Neither could convince me in this movie.

The action scenes were quit good, somewhat overdone in most cases, making Ludlow look more like a downtown version of Rambo, but at least the scenes well laid out. The camera wasn't always spot on, resulting in some actions scenes looking more like blurs than anything else - even if viewed in HD.

The music was typical for an action movie. It lacked detail is some cases, seemed a little too loud in some scenes and started a little too early once or twice. But this type of movie doesn't live off the music anyway so that can be excused.

After all that, you might think this is a really bad movie. It's not. It's just not a really good movie either. Watch it, think about it, but don't expect too much.

Brüno (2009)

How could they let it happen?

I actually went to see this movie and had no idea what I was getting myself into. Somehow that's how I manage to see most bad movies. Two friends of mine invited me to go watch it with them. They even paid the cinema for me because I was having a bad day. :-) This movie made a bad day end horribly! I didn't know it was a kind of Borat 2 and because I didn't read too much about movies before, I didn't make the connection until the movie was actually running.

What worries and scares me is that this movie has been rated way up there with the real classics like Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather and others that have made history. That means, this flick has been rated as good as movies that have actual stories, actual acting (by actual actors) and actually caused work to be made. As I am writing this, the rating is a 9.4 out of ten and I am wondering if the people using the internet are working towards collective brain-death or something.

I have not seen Borat and therefore I do not know if there is a need to see it as a background for Brüno. Since this movie has no storyline to speak of, I consider is unlikely.

The basic plot is a gay man who was once a big name in fashion (or so he thinks) within Europe goes to America to become famous. During this quest he makes an absolute jerk of himself and provokes people where he can. In some cases the irritation of the people around him is mildly entertaining and there are a few good and funny one-liners, but you really have to look for them and there is lots of space between them.

Apart from that, most of the movie is completely sick. When I was still active in Latin dancing, there were a lot of gay men in that sport and several of them are still my friends. None of them ever let their sexuality hang out the way that Brüno does. It's just too much. As a result lots of the stuff you see seems like it comes from some cheep porn movie.

Somehow I guess the movie is supposed to prove that American people still do not accept gay people (especially gay men). A man and a woman kissing in public isn't really a big deal. But if they did that only wearing underwear and wildly grabbing each other in "certain" places, the scene would certainly be frowned upon. So why is it a big deal if gay men are frowned upon doing the same? And it should be no surprise that going to a swinger-party as a man doesn't make you popular if you start hitting on the men - while they are having intercourse with a woman.

Somehow I didn't quite get, where the interview with the parents was supposed to fit in. Brüno wanted to use children on photos for PR and asked the parents what he could do with their kids. This is the only part of the movie I was truly shocked about. But that part just doesn't fit into the movie - not only because it's the only part that doesn't shock the viewer due to a gay overkill but for other reasons.

Brüno has thrown the gay movement back 25 years at least. His conduct is simply unacceptable - for a man or woman, gay or straight. I wasted two hours of my life watching this movie. At least I didn't have to pay for it.

Walking with Beasts (2001)

Fun to watch but more of a story than a documentation...

The idea of "Walking with Beasts" was to close part of the gap between the end of "Walking with Dinosaurs" (ending in the late Cretaceous) and today.

The story begins in the early Eocene (~55 million years ago). Why the Paleozoic (the 10 million years between the Cretaceous and the Eocene) have been left out I don't know. This was also a quite exciting time in Earth's history, just after the fall of the dinosaurs.

The series give a nice overlook of the animals that lived during the specified time. These are just short windows however, sometimes just single days within an epoch, which doesn't give much insight into the development of animals.

The amount of speculation in this series seems to be even greater than in "Walking with Dinosaurs". While we still don't know if the animals of the Eocene were single-coloured, or had spots or stars or stripes, most animals in this series had very distinct markings on their fur or feathers. But this goes even further with information about social behavior among early primates and tales of gases trapped within the local pond. These things all MIGHT have been, but watching the series gives you the impression that someone went back in time to study these animals (for a few years).

There are a few animals that have left us not only bones, but also fur and dung, like the mammoth, some sabre toothed cats and the giant ground sloth (megatherium). These creatures were recreated wonderfully.

This is another edutainment documentation from the BBC where the emphasis was put a little to much on the entertainment side. Just the same, it's not really bad (just not as good as "Life on Earth" was for example), a lot of fun to watch and it also contains a nice insight into the world of mammals.

The Ballad of Big Al (2000)

We've had fun, now comes some information - without being boring.

The Ballad of Big Al is really the follow-up that greatly increases the class of "Walking with Dinosaurs".

Big Al MUST be seen in combination with the second part of the special (The Science of Big Al). This way you at last get an idea of what clues we have on Dinosaurs and how the clues have been put together to get an idea of how the Dinosaurs might have lived.

Using the clues found within the skeleton of an Allosaurus (Big Al), the team has put together something like "This is your life", Big Al. Big Al is born, grows up, hunts and dies. Although the story is (of course) only speculation, it is very interesting and put together with a lot of love. Unlike the series (Walking with Dinosaurs), the Ballad of Big Al really tells the viewer that this is only an assumption of Big Al's life while also letting the viewer in on many of the key reasons for this assumption.

All in all this is a great follow-up. It's just too bad that "Walking with Dinosaurs" didn't have more of Big Al and the qualities of the follow-up.

Walking with Dinosaurs (1999)

Very entertaining, not much information though...

For some time there has been this new word: "edutainment". The basic idea is to combine entertainment with making the people learn something. It has changed the way documentations are made and presented completely. The problem is what sort of trade-off you want to make. Something with pure information isn't usually that entertaining anymore ('Life on Earth' probably wouldn't sell too well today), but some information SHOULD still be included.

The BBC have found an acceptable balance here. The series is a lot of fun to watch and you do get some insights into the world of the dinosaurs. The special effects and animations are very good. Too bad the scenes with puppets (especially when the dinosaurs are eating) look very unreal. Some of the scenes are also repeated frequently which doesn't matter much when you see the documentation for the first time but tends to annoy later on.

The biggest problem with "Walking with Dinosaurs" is the fact that it is built upon speculation. No one knows how the Dinosaurs lived for sure, if they traveled in herds or hunted in packs or not. We can only guess if a diplodocus wagged its tail to help others in the herd see it - not that the pure bulk of more that 10t in an adult would probably do that more effectively than a wagging tail.

"Walking with Dinosaurs" leaves this fact nearly completely in the dark. The viewer never really gets to know that this interpretation of the fossil clues is just one of many. To make matters worse, in many cases the story-telling style of the series (like the life of a diplodocus in "Time of the Titans") drops some of the facts we really DO know. Only in the special with "Big Al" some of the facts are even mentioned.

In the end we have to admit that information doesn't sell that well and this product fits just fine into modern times.

RocketMan (1997)

Really funny - after a while

This is one of the movies you usually oversee at the video store, because of the cover - it gives you the feeling that this film will be really stupid. To be honest, this feeling is really quite right.

The idea of a real idiot (some nutty computer-geek) becoming a space man because the guy really in for the job manages to make a jerk of himself during the landing-simulation and while proving that it was his fault he winds up in a wheelchair because of a few broken bones, seems like a good laugh. Unfortunately the director seems to have thought that 45 jokes per minute isn't enough. This overkill with jokes of all sorts makes a great deal of them really sick. Our hero seems more like a complete lunatic who normally wouldn't be allowed on the street instead of a harmless computer-weirdo.

Apart from that the movie is good for a few REALLY good laughs. And it gets better as it plays. Once our hero and his crew have left Earth most of the jokes are really good. We had to stop the video several times to calm down from laughing - otherwise we would have missed something.

All in all a good movie for a funny trip with friends, not exactly the thing to start a romantic evening though.

NOTE: I saw this movie in German only. Usually the German translations tend to ruin a move so this text may not apply for other languages.

Texas - Doc Snyder hält die Welt in Atem (1993)

Fans love it, anyone with brains hates it...

When I went to see this movie I had no idea who Helge Schneider was. I just strung along with a friend of mine and his girl-friend, the latter being an absolute Helge-fan.

When the movie started I was (only) slightly irritated. But that didn't stay that way. The film went on with the sickest jokes (or rather: most non-existent jokes) I have every seen. There is no story and no means forgotten to absolutely ruin the few things in the movie that may have actually turned out to be funny, like giving someone twenty German Marks in a wild-west scenario. All this made several people walk out during the movie.

But this movie was the first of a kind in my life: Never before did I actually want my money back after a film.

Kleines Arschloch (1997)

Taste is relativ...

I am not a person who believes in "family, love, morality". I make jokes about just about everything, always knowing how these are meant. This film however somehow made me think a little bit too much.

Sure, there are some REALLY good jokes in this film (I only saw the original German version and don't know anything about the translation). Most characters are sure to provide many good laughs. My personal favorite was the old man (Grandpa) with his great phrases.

There are on the other hand several "jokes" which go so far that they are no longer funny (IMHO). Sure, old people may become helpless and may have to live in special homes; but suggesting that they are only lumps of meat with snot constantly dripping from there noses is almost a direct insult. This is one example of several.

Generally this movie is worth seeing, a little more respect and good taste would have helped enormously.