I am pretty sure, this abomination was done by the Badener. I have rarely (if ever) seen such a collection of idiots in a series as in this one. Certainly all Württemberger (Schwaben, as one says these days). It starts with the #1 idiot, father Laible. But there's also the friend of the son, the carpenter. Dumb as bread, as we say in Germany. And the banker chick, that doesn't have a clue that she is used by the Frisch guy all the time. Besides all that, there's more chaos, catastrophes and mischief in 12 parts than in all of "Gute Zeiten, Schlechte Zeiten" combined. Too much is too much. I am not surprised by the 3 stars that this gets, I just wish, I would have checked beforehand.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Kill Bill: Vol. 2
(2004)
Should never have been separated from part one
28 April 2005
After seeing the fantastic first part of Kill Bill, I was counting the days until I could go and see the sequel. Finally I was able to go, and then this. I was somewhat disappointed. It wasn't really outright bad, it wasn't really outright boring, but it was the perfect anti-climax to Vol. 1. Mr. Tarantino should never have cut that into two parts! If it would have been one long film, I think I wouldn't see the second part as I do now. After the first two hours of what is now Vol. 1 with its thrill, the violence, the speed of it, continuing a bit slowing (okay, forget the 'bit'), continuing slower paced, leading to the end, that would have been okay. But since the first part is now some months old, and with the expectations I had for Vol. 2, I felt a bit like the guy jumping out of the birthday cake "BOOO" and realising he was two hours early and no one is there.
The one good scene it it was that piece where The Bride got buried alive, until she walked into that café asking for water. And I like the piece where she tore out the last remaining eye from Elle. What I also liked (first I thought what the hell) was Bill's speech about super heroes and superman and what's the difference between Superman and the others. And what all that had to do with The Bride. That was a nice parable, and I could understand Bill on that point.
The one good scene it it was that piece where The Bride got buried alive, until she walked into that café asking for water. And I like the piece where she tore out the last remaining eye from Elle. What I also liked (first I thought what the hell) was Bill's speech about super heroes and superman and what's the difference between Superman and the others. And what all that had to do with The Bride. That was a nice parable, and I could understand Bill on that point.
The Day After Tomorrow
(2004)
Too much Hollywood in the second half, but still something to see
28 April 2005
I always like to go and see Roland Emmerich films, that's real popcorn cinema to me. Since I liked the preview too, I was surely going to see it.
This film shows how the northern hemisphere gets thrown into a new ice age, thanks to global warming, that will melt most of the north pole's ice, which in turn will make the gulf stream stop. Chaotic weather, with tornadoes by the dozen, huge storms and temperature dropping by a hundred degrees in the centre of the three continent-wide storms destroy our civilization. The southern half of the US of A have to run for shelter in Mexico (where it's just snowing, nothing else), and the northern states just have to sit it out. Same in Europe and in Asia, which gets barely mentioned (apart from a few seconds in Scotland). That's the first half of the film. I really liked that a lot! Great effects, and it all sounds not so wrong. There was plenty of stunning scenes, and a good tempo.
The second half of the film then simply became like so many other catastrophe films. The one scientist who was warning of what will happen, is in Washington DC, and his sun is stuck in New York, sitting the winter storm out in the central library. Daddy has to go and rescue him. Certainly he will make it.
As usual with Emmerich (good for his wallet), the end was a bit too much Hollywood, too happy end, but okay. I just wish it would have been him finding his son and that group and them setting out (still on snow-shoes) to go to Mexico or wherever. End scene them disappearing into the snowy landscape. Full Stop. But no, certainly the good US army had to fly in with their good helicopters to save the good people, and hundreds if not thousands of other good people that suddenly appeared on the rooftops of the skyscrapers of NYC. Where did they survive? No one knows. Why did they not set out to go to the south, like the majority of the library group? No one knows. Did they have the same knowledge as the remaining group in the library, being warned by the ONE scientist who understood what's happening about leaving? Definitely not.
I give the first part 9 and the second part 5 out of 10 = 7 overall points!
This film shows how the northern hemisphere gets thrown into a new ice age, thanks to global warming, that will melt most of the north pole's ice, which in turn will make the gulf stream stop. Chaotic weather, with tornadoes by the dozen, huge storms and temperature dropping by a hundred degrees in the centre of the three continent-wide storms destroy our civilization. The southern half of the US of A have to run for shelter in Mexico (where it's just snowing, nothing else), and the northern states just have to sit it out. Same in Europe and in Asia, which gets barely mentioned (apart from a few seconds in Scotland). That's the first half of the film. I really liked that a lot! Great effects, and it all sounds not so wrong. There was plenty of stunning scenes, and a good tempo.
The second half of the film then simply became like so many other catastrophe films. The one scientist who was warning of what will happen, is in Washington DC, and his sun is stuck in New York, sitting the winter storm out in the central library. Daddy has to go and rescue him. Certainly he will make it.
As usual with Emmerich (good for his wallet), the end was a bit too much Hollywood, too happy end, but okay. I just wish it would have been him finding his son and that group and them setting out (still on snow-shoes) to go to Mexico or wherever. End scene them disappearing into the snowy landscape. Full Stop. But no, certainly the good US army had to fly in with their good helicopters to save the good people, and hundreds if not thousands of other good people that suddenly appeared on the rooftops of the skyscrapers of NYC. Where did they survive? No one knows. Why did they not set out to go to the south, like the majority of the library group? No one knows. Did they have the same knowledge as the remaining group in the library, being warned by the ONE scientist who understood what's happening about leaving? Definitely not.
I give the first part 9 and the second part 5 out of 10 = 7 overall points!
I, Robot
(2004)
Popcorn cinema
28 April 2005
This film is about a cop who gets on the case of a robot killing a human. Something that is completely impossible, thanks to the Three Laws, with the first saying that a Robot cannot harm a human.
I liked that film pretty well, it was smooth running popcorn cinema. There was just nothing awesome in it, but it was still not so bad. What starting bugging me a bit in the second half was the fact that I got so much reminded of the present US Administration and Bush and the illegal Iraq war and the 'war on terrorism' that I had a hard time taking the film for a film. The robots suddenly turned against their human owners, mindless machines following the orders of the positronic supercomputer VIKI, that had decided that to protect the humans from each other they had to be arrested. Sounds so much like Bush and his war against terrorism and those (certainly not all, but too many) mindless Americans that still today scream against Germany and France for not supporting the war, even after so many high placed guys of the US (like Powell and Rize and the boss of the CIA) had to admit, that Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden and the attack on the WTA, and even after all that time not finding any hidden caches with Weapons of Mass Destruction. It sounds so much like Bush removing bit by bit so many liberal rights from the US-American citizens, saying it's all for their protection.
As you can see, this film doesn't leave so much impression that I can actually talk about it, so I give it 6 out of 10 points, not bad, but not special either.
I liked that film pretty well, it was smooth running popcorn cinema. There was just nothing awesome in it, but it was still not so bad. What starting bugging me a bit in the second half was the fact that I got so much reminded of the present US Administration and Bush and the illegal Iraq war and the 'war on terrorism' that I had a hard time taking the film for a film. The robots suddenly turned against their human owners, mindless machines following the orders of the positronic supercomputer VIKI, that had decided that to protect the humans from each other they had to be arrested. Sounds so much like Bush and his war against terrorism and those (certainly not all, but too many) mindless Americans that still today scream against Germany and France for not supporting the war, even after so many high placed guys of the US (like Powell and Rize and the boss of the CIA) had to admit, that Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden and the attack on the WTA, and even after all that time not finding any hidden caches with Weapons of Mass Destruction. It sounds so much like Bush removing bit by bit so many liberal rights from the US-American citizens, saying it's all for their protection.
As you can see, this film doesn't leave so much impression that I can actually talk about it, so I give it 6 out of 10 points, not bad, but not special either.
The Village
(2004)
What a bore
28 April 2005
This was the third film I saw, that was directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
And it's the last one I will see. The first one was 6th Sense, with Bruce Willis, which is such a great film, the second one was already a disappointment (Unbreakable), and now the third one is really just bad. Never again!
The idea of the movie wasn't so bad, but the idea never got developed into anything worthwhile.
There was absolutely nothing in that film that I remember as thrilling or exciting, and around half of the film I was debating to leave, and just stayed because I wasn't sure if my girlfriend liked it or not.
And it's the last one I will see. The first one was 6th Sense, with Bruce Willis, which is such a great film, the second one was already a disappointment (Unbreakable), and now the third one is really just bad. Never again!
The idea of the movie wasn't so bad, but the idea never got developed into anything worthwhile.
There was absolutely nothing in that film that I remember as thrilling or exciting, and around half of the film I was debating to leave, and just stayed because I wasn't sure if my girlfriend liked it or not.
National Treasure
(2004)
politically clean adventure film
28 April 2005
National Treasure (what a title) is very entertaining films, written Disney all over it. No swear-words, no sex, no naked skin, no real violence, you can safely take your cat along and she won't get scared. But nevertheless it's still a well made film that won't leave you bored in your seat.
National Treasure falls in line with several films of 2004 that were really good, not great (apart from Last Samurai, which is a great film, and The Village which is on the other end of the spectrum). I don't know why it was so hard this year for the film industry to serve a REALLY great film. In January when I have seen Last Samurai, I was so stunned by it, that I said, 'I think I have already seen the best film for this year' and oh boy was I right! When I look back on the films I have seen this year they were mostly good, but all had something that was lacking. :-/
National Treasure falls in line with several films of 2004 that were really good, not great (apart from Last Samurai, which is a great film, and The Village which is on the other end of the spectrum). I don't know why it was so hard this year for the film industry to serve a REALLY great film. In January when I have seen Last Samurai, I was so stunned by it, that I said, 'I think I have already seen the best film for this year' and oh boy was I right! When I look back on the films I have seen this year they were mostly good, but all had something that was lacking. :-/
The Incredibles
(2004)
Not so great
28 April 2005
I decided to go and see that film after seeing the commercials/trailers on TV. It looked like smart fun, for grown-ups as well as kids. Since my daughter came after Christmas for a week, I thought that's a good chance to see it. It's a cartoon about a family of ex-superheroes (Dad is super-strong, Mom is flexible, like she can stretch her arms 10 metres) and their two teenage kids and a baby. Ex-superheroes because all the superheroes got sued by people that got hurt by them in the process of getting rescued, silly things like that. Well it's completely imaginable that some American lawyers would come up with such ideas, just think of the granny that sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot - give me a break! Anyway all the super-heroes retired to live a normal live, secretly, unknown to be those ex-superheroes. But since Daddy is a bit of the body builder stereotype (all muscles no brains) he gets the family into trouble with a bad guy and they have to fight. So apart from the story, which was okay, how did the film fare? I would say it was plenty of fun for my daughter, but it's not exactly what I would call a good cartoon that is also recommendable for grown-ups. If you're curious about the films, see all the trailers you can find on-line, and then you have seen all the good stuff of the film. The rest is a bit boring and a bit too long.
A Very Long Engagement
(2004)
If you have some time to spend, watch it
28 April 2005
This film plays right after the end of World War I, with flashbacks to earlier scenes, mostly from the trenches of WWI, but even some earlier.
The story is about Mathilde, a French woman in her early twenties, looking for her fiancé who didn't come back from the war. She got message that he was sentenced to death for 'Self Inflicted Mutilation'. Meaning he let the enemy shoot through his hand to get back home. Death penalty in the French army means you get kicked out of the trenches into the no man's land between the front lines. If you come back - you get shot. If you don't, the Germans will shoot you. If they don't, you will starve of hunger or freeze to death.
Well, Mathilde insists that he's alive and employs a P.I. do go and find traces of him or of the other four soldiers that were thrown out of the trenches on that day. To enhance her chances she pursues the little she knows, as well. I won't say more about it, so not to spoil it. So, how did I like that films? It was an okay films, it was never boring, but it didn't excite me too much either. It was a nice piece to watch, with interesting scenes and insights into the time around World War I. The plot was good, consistent and with twists and turns. If you haven't seen it and have some time to spend, go and watch it.
BTW: Rating this film with 'R' is completely ridiculous and a people finding this film needs an 'R' has really a big mental problem!
The story is about Mathilde, a French woman in her early twenties, looking for her fiancé who didn't come back from the war. She got message that he was sentenced to death for 'Self Inflicted Mutilation'. Meaning he let the enemy shoot through his hand to get back home. Death penalty in the French army means you get kicked out of the trenches into the no man's land between the front lines. If you come back - you get shot. If you don't, the Germans will shoot you. If they don't, you will starve of hunger or freeze to death.
Well, Mathilde insists that he's alive and employs a P.I. do go and find traces of him or of the other four soldiers that were thrown out of the trenches on that day. To enhance her chances she pursues the little she knows, as well. I won't say more about it, so not to spoil it. So, how did I like that films? It was an okay films, it was never boring, but it didn't excite me too much either. It was a nice piece to watch, with interesting scenes and insights into the time around World War I. The plot was good, consistent and with twists and turns. If you haven't seen it and have some time to spend, go and watch it.
BTW: Rating this film with 'R' is completely ridiculous and a people finding this film needs an 'R' has really a big mental problem!
Saw
(2004)
A really great movie while watching, but I doubt I could watch it twice
11 April 2005
Thriller about two guys who find themselves chained to opposite walls in an old shower room with a dead guy between them and the kidnapper playing riddles with them. The killer, who is never to be seen, sends them little messages, already hidden in their pockets or in places in the room. Messages like the one telling the Doctor that he has to kill the other guy within the next few hours or his wife and daughter will be killed. Messages like two hidden saws that they find that are not good enough to cut the chains around their ankles but definitely good enough to cut through those ankles. The doctor remembers having heard more about this killer, because he was once the main suspect himself. This killer loves to play such mind games where the abducted people usually end up killing themselves while trying to follow the game. Only one ever escaped.
The movie is very tight, fast with a good story and I haven't found one second to catch my breath, and that for a movie of 100 minutes. I really enjoyed it (if one can say with such a grisly movie that one enjoyed it), but the strange thing is, I came out of the movie and boom it was gone. I didn't feel anything special afterwards, I wasn't stunned, scared, awed or whatever. It's like I have seen the movie 10 years ago, not 10 minutes ago. So I can't give it the 8 points that I would have given to it while it was on.
The movie is very tight, fast with a good story and I haven't found one second to catch my breath, and that for a movie of 100 minutes. I really enjoyed it (if one can say with such a grisly movie that one enjoyed it), but the strange thing is, I came out of the movie and boom it was gone. I didn't feel anything special afterwards, I wasn't stunned, scared, awed or whatever. It's like I have seen the movie 10 years ago, not 10 minutes ago. So I can't give it the 8 points that I would have given to it while it was on.
Ringu
(1998)
What a boring movie
3 April 2005
Just finished watching The Ring with my girlfriend and I think she's a bit upset with me for coming up with this movie. The movie starts slow and low and from there on crawls slowly down the slope. Confused story, with the guy getting ideas without us seeing where he gets them from, just to push the movie onwards, I guess the story writer didn't have any ideas.
There was also hardly any suspense, and no I am not looking for gore stuff either, but there were only 3 or 4 minutes that were a bit interesting.
I really don't see why people rate this movie so high. Go out and watch the sunset, that's way more exciting!
There was also hardly any suspense, and no I am not looking for gore stuff either, but there were only 3 or 4 minutes that were a bit interesting.
I really don't see why people rate this movie so high. Go out and watch the sunset, that's way more exciting!
Tell Your Friends