sascha-17 Reviews

The Mandalorian: Chapter 15: The Believer (2020) Season 2, Episode 7

If this is filler ... then give me more filler!

[9/10 · 16 December 2021]

I don't understand the luke-warm reception (by Mandalorian-standards) that this ep seems to have gotten.

We're getting Mando and his gang of ever-helpful misfits, starring in a mini-homage to one of the greatest action films ever made ("Le salaire de la peur"). Plus Bill Burr is always fun, so it's no wonder the writers all but turned this episode into the Mayfeld/Burr-show. I'm still not quite sure if I'm ok with the accent he chose to use for the role but, other than that, his character and performance are a real shot in the arm for the SW-franchise.

Overall, the plot of "The Believer" moves along at a brisk pace, even though there are some dialogue-heavy scenes that some might find boring. I for one was riveted to the screen during most of the ep. And it's not just the competently shot action-scenes, but it's also the rather clever script. I mean... the writers actually managed to get me to cheer on a flight of TIE fighters as they were mowing down a dozen or so freedom-fighters.

Seeing how they fleshed out Mayfeld quite a bit in this instalment, I do hope this'll mean the return of the character in season 3.

If I had to criticise the episode, I'd complain about the absence of Carl Weathers. Other than Pedro Pascal, it's him and probably Nick Nolte who have impressed me the most of all the regular players on this show.

9/10.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

The Emperor has no clothes ...

[4/10 · 15 December 2017]

I can't quite believe the hype this movie is getting from professional critics. It almost feels like people have agreed that any technically well-made film with the Star Wars name on it has got to be a great film. Well, let me be the party-pooper by pointing out the fact that, to me at least, the emperor is strolling around town butt naked.

Just like "The Force Awakens" and "Rogue One" before, this new exercise in flogging the dead Star Wars-horse relies way too heavily on fan-nostalgia and countless elements, moments, shots and dialogue lifted straight from the original trilogy.

Whether it's bigger things like the Rey/Luke relationship, which is a carbon copy of the Luke/Ben or Luke/Yoda-relationship, or small details like Luke meeting R2 after years and years, which is a straight rip-off of a very similar scene from ANH where Obi Wan is reunited with R2 on Tatooine.

And that's a real problem for someone like me who grew up on the original films: I went into TLJ having avoided spoilers completely and yet I could predict the "plot" at almost every turn. And before someone brings up the word "homage" or George Lucas' infamous quote about poetry and rhyming: This goes way beyond that.

The whole movie is a mish-mash of the three original films - most elements come from "Empire" though - and to me it felt like the screenwriter went through a checklist of original elements he wanted to plunder and cram into this new movie.

Whether it's the separation of the main cast, our young hero getting training from an exiled old Jedi-Master, a land-battle on an ice/salt-planet involving speeders and AT-ATs, the force ghost of a former mentor appearing for a talk with the young Jedi in training or a big confrontation involving a powerful, disfigured arch-villain, his apprentice and our young hero - there simply isn't much that is new or original in this film.

And all this gives the new SW-films a certain taint - these aren't stories a writer/director wants to tell, these are business-endeavors designed to cash in on nostalgia for a series of movies from a long-gone era of film-making.

I guess it's like one of the more critical reviews I came across said: The franchise is a hostage of its own legacy. As long as enough elements from the old films are shown on screen and as long as the poster says "Star Wars", people will go watch these movies. God forbid they would decide to make a Star Wars film without any references to the Empire, the Death Star or Darth Vader. Which is kind of understandable from a business-perspective, considering what these films cost to produce. From a creative POV however, this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

I just wish someone at Disney would grow a pair and dump all the original-trilogy-baggage and decide to start a brand new saga from scratch. Don't these people want to tell their own, unique stories? Where would, say, the arts be today if every painter after Leonardo da Vinci had decided to simply re-paint the Mona Lisa over and over again...?

5/10

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

Runs out of steam halfway in

[6/10 · 10 November 2017]

*** Some spoilers ahead for the handful of people who are not familiar with Christie's classic murder mystery. ***

As a fan of the book and the Sidney Lumet adaptation, I was curious how Kenneth Branagh's take on Agatha Christie's famous story would play out. On paper, all the ingredients for a decent (or even great), modern day adaptation are there: A star-studded cast, beautiful production-design and costumes and a seasoned director with deep roots in both stage- and film-work. And for about half of the film's running time, all that seems to hold the piece together pretty well. There's a sense of "class" about the flick: Grand vistas, beautiful art-deco environments, exotic locations and a general flair of slower, more elegant era (not so) long gone-by. I can even live with the director's odd choice of playing the lead-role himself. Branagh sure wouldn't be my first pick for Poirot and he does have a slightly different take on the famous Belgian super-sleuth. This Poirot seems more brooding and "conflicted" than any other version I've seen before - but I'm not sure this change adds anything to either the character or to this particular story. On the other hand, we do get satisfyingly quirky moments showcasing Poirot's little eccentricities. His obsession with orderliness, cleanliness and his quick and witty sense of humor.

As expected with this sort of group, the rest of the cast are more than up to the task as well - if they are allowed to occupy the screen, that is. Sadly, a lot of characters are criminally underused. We hardly get to know some players who are vital to the plot and who held much more prominent roles in Sidney Lumet's version. For example: One of the main suspects and an important character overall has so few lines that he almost seems superfluous in Branagh's adaptation. And I think we have the director to blame here, who seems to be infatuated with his own face. Instead of spending more time with the rest of the ensemble, he gives us one long close-up of himself after the other - a decision whose negative impact on the film is exacerbated by a seemingly trivial item - Poirot's facial hair. At some point while making the film, someone must have thought that having "the greatest mustache in London" means that Poirot goes through life looking like a walrus. It wouldn't have been a huge deal, if Branagh hadn't insisted to stick this hairy monstrosity in our faces again and again. By the fourth long close-up with the monster-stache center-stage, the audience in my theater were beginning to chuckle.

But I digress ... It's when the titular murder occurs that the movie really fell apart for me. And it's mostly down to unforced errors committed by the script. For example: In a lot of places, this film is closer to Christie's novel than the Lumet-version of the 70s. Little details that Lumet left out are included here - like the fictional Mr Harris whose berth Poirot occupies on the first night on the train. But in other places, the script veers off and tries to trick us into thinking it was headed towards a different conclusion than the source-material. Which, if you know the story and the ending, feels more like an attempt at trickery than actual creativity, because (Spoiler!) ... the movie ultimately does not have the guts to re-write Christie's solution.

And then there's the matter of leaving out crucial details which rob the ending of its original tone. A major point in the original was the fact that the victim had been found guilty and more or less convicted of murder already, but then had to be released due to a technicality. Making his death on the train less of an act of revenge or vigilantism and more like an act of citizens trying to ensure that justice is being served. Branagh's version leaves out this crucial detail about the trial and thus makes the group of murderers seem more like an angry lynch mob ... which in turn makes Poirot's decision to let them go feel out of character for him. In the original, we could comprehend why Poirot (albeit with much inner conflict) decided to let them get away with murder. In this version, we get a hysteric Michelle Pfeiffer and lots of close ups of Poirot staring into space while the music swells in the background. Ultimately, we're left to wonder why this stickler for justice and righteousness would let this particular murder go unpunished.

I also take some exception to the somewhat lame attempts at "diverse casting". I have no objections to transforming white characters into ones of color - but those changes should make sense within the story and within the period that's being portrayed. In this particular case for example, it would've made much more sense to re-write the character in question as either an Indian or Middle Eastern man. But going with a black guy, the story has to perform some serious mental gymnastics in order to explain his presence in the story.

I do wonder however, whether someone who goes into this film without any knowledge of the original story will share my concerns and might actually enjoy the film more than I did. If you look past the puzzling decisions made by the screenwriter, there's much to be admired here. Sadly though, I couldn't help but notice the needless changes they chose to make and thus this film, for me, wasn't better than slightly above average.

6/10

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

Spielberg doesn't understand Tintin

[6/10 · 2 March 2016]

Minor spoilers ahead.

While impressive on a technical level, this big-screen-adaptation of the Tintin-adventures fails to capture the essence of Hergé's brilliant creation.

The problem is "tone". What was, in its comic-form, a semi-realistic detective-story for adolescent boys has been turned into a cartoon-y slapstick-fest aimed at preschoolers.

Tintin of the comics existed in a semi-realistic world. Yes: There were moments of silliness and convenient coincidences, but generally speaking, the world Hergé created adhered to a kind of realism and seriousness. And that's precisely why I loved the comics growing up. Here were tales your parents would let you read, but which treated you and your intelligence with a kind of "respect" rarely found in other kid-friendly comics.

Not so in the movie, which bombards you with one wacky, mind-numbing action-scene after the other and dumbs down its story and characters to appeal to 6-year-olds.

Let's just take a couple of examples: The Unicorn "dream-sequence" of the comics was presented as a realistic sea-battle - in the movie it looks more like something out of a Looney Tunes-skit. With burning ships getting lifted from the sea, people performing impossible feats of athleticism, etc. All of which defies any sort of real-world-physics.

Characterization - for example: The Thompson-twins. These two were never a favorite of mine in the comics either, but the movie takes their stupidity even beyond slapstick-levels - as evidenced in their scene in Mr. Silk's apartment. Sure: In the comics, these two guys were mostly incompetent and naive - but in the film they act like a pair of lobotomized chimps.

Tintin's and Haddock's escape on the plane. In the comic, this was a pretty intense and disturbing scene. Haddock was acting like a borderline psycho, trying to knock Tintin out because he wanted to fly the plane himself. In the film, it's just another collection of physically impossible stunts, ending with Haddock belching into the plane's gas-tank. Seriously?

Which brings me to my next point of criticism and that is a lack of restraint on the part of the film-makers. Yes: a film done entirely in CG gives you incredible freedom. You can place your camera anywhere you want to, you can have characters perform incredible, physics-defying stunts. But in Tintin, they've taken these two "advantages" so far that it actually hurts the movie overall. When your hero survives one impossible stunt-sequence after the other, the novelty of it all wears off pretty quickly. Consequently, we stop caring - because we've seen him survive this sort of stuff over and over again, so why should be get invested when the 10th such sequence comes along?

Lastly I have to address the poor choices in screen writing. Even though this film is called "Secret of the Unicorn" it throws elements of at least one more adventure into the mix ("The Crab with the Golden Claws"). I can see why they did this in order to have Tintin meet Haddock, but I can't help but wonder why they chose either "Unicorn" or "Crab" as starting points in the first place.

Neither are exactly among the stronger Tintin-stories - a fact which the screenwriters seem to acknowledge themselves by switching tons of details around like cutting characters or transforming a minor character from the comic into the film's main villain.

6/10 - mostly for its technical strengths and to acknowledge the relative "audacity" of adapting a comic-series that's probably not very widely known in the US.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Too close to the original

[7/10 · 25 January 2016]

Don't get me wrong: Ep VII is nothing like the soul-less, computer-game-cut-scene-esque mess that were the prequels. But it ain't no "Empire" either - I'd go as far as saying that even "Jedi" was a better, more original and ultimately more interesting movie.

Before I get to my gripes, here's what Ep VII did right:

• Look and feel - You can definitely tell that this film used real locations, real props and doesn't rely entirely on CGI-sequences or actors walking around a small green-screen-box. The landscape-shots are quite beautiful, at times even breathtaking - as well they should be in a Star Wars movie.

• Casting: The actors did a fine job with their roles and seemed like they were thoroughly enjoying themselves. Just like he proved in ST, JJ Abrams really knows how to assemble a great cast.

• Special effects: I'm not sure how much they did with computers and how much model-work (if any) was utilized. But the FX-sequences simply work. Things have "weight" and feel real. At no time was I zoning out during big FX-shots like I did with the prequels.

• No connection to the prequels: Well, this one was a no-brainer. Had JJ Abrams decided to have the plot revolve about Jar-Jar's son, he probably would've been fired on the first day of production. But also there's no mention of silly Midichlorians or any of the other nonsense Lucas introduced in the prequels.

-No over-choreographed, drawn-out lightsaber battles. In fact: No overuse of lightsabers, period. When they finally make a longer appearance, it feels like the movie "earned" that sequence. Unlike with the prequels, where people took out their lightsabers in every other scene.

OK, but here are my problems with the film, and most of them are down to what already bothered me with Abrams' ST-films.

Story.

So, let's see.. the Empire has been destroyed for decades, but somehow they're still in charge of... something? And there's a "Resistance" which opposes them, and that resistance is pretty much indistinguishable from what used to be the Rebel Alliance in IV-VI. But how? Shouldn't the Rebels be the establishment now? If anything, the First Order should be called "Resistance", since they are now the insurgents, fighting against the "government".

But the big one is this: VII follows the story of IV so closely, it's not even funny. I went into the film having avoided spoilers and plot discussions, and I could pretty much predict almost all the major scenes and "twists" well before they happened.

Even the characters and their roles in the story aren't *really* all that original. Rey is pretty much a substitute for young Luke, Poe is Han Solo, while Han himself fills the Obi Wan role from Ep IV (wise old mentor). Plus: Whole sequences are simply re-tellings of IV's story. We have Rey meeting the droid carrying secret information, we have a "rescue an ally on an evil base"-sequence, we have the "space-battle to destroy the evil base", we have the "old mentor dies in front of the young hero"-scene, etc. Oh, and yes: Why they felt the need to include yet *another* Death Star is beyond me. Not only does it make *no* sense within the story (how would a group like the First Order be able to construct such a monstrosity?), but the planet-destroying space-station is also getting to be a tired old cliché in SW. Heck, even "Jedi" was pushing it with the Death Star MK II.

And it would've been pretty easy to avoid a lot of this criticism: Scratch the new Death Star and include a 15 minute sequence which explains the rise of the First Order and establishes the inner workings of the New Republic. Make it a pre-credit sequence or a prologue - heck, you could probably make an entire movie about all this, set 10 years before the events of VII. I'm not saying they should've made a political SW-film, but we as the viewer need to know who does what and why so that we can care about the bigger picture. That's what Ep IV did so brilliantly with its opening Star Destroyer-attack-sequence: Without saying anything, it established the Empire and the Rebels and told us instantly why we should hate the Empire and root for the Rebels.

Overall however, I was mildly surprised at how VII managed to bring back *some* of the old SW-magic, but I guess when you follow the awful prequels, it's pretty easy to look good in comparison. I do recommend the film, but for old SW-fans like myself, who've seen the originals in the theater, it probably still won't be *quite* good enough.

7/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Square peg meets round hole

[7/10 · 22 April 2013]

Let me start by saying that I was pleasantly surprised when I finally watched The Hobbit on DVD last week. Having read a ton of reviews and rants online and shaking my head in disbelief at the weird decision to turn a 320-page children's-book into three 180-minute movies, I really wanted to hate this flick.

Turns out it's not that bad after all, but that may have something to do with the fact that I'm a huge sucker for everything Tolkien. Consequently, I didn't mind the slow start of the film. In fact, the prologue (narrated by the wonderful Ian Holm) does a good job of getting you re-acquainted with the world of Middle Earth and giving you the necessary background on the history of Durin's Folk (Dwarfs). I also didn't mind the extended party sequence at Bag End.. those scene are pretty much straight out of the book.

But let me get straight to my two main criticisms: Tone and unnecessary changes.

The filmmakers are pretty obviously trying to make The Hobbit fit in with LOTR, and that's like trying to fit the proverbial square peg into a round hole. One is a lighthearted fairytale written for kids, the other is a hugely complex and much darker epic. But instead of settling for one tone (lighthearted or serious/epic) and sticking with it, the filmmakers try to have it both ways. And they actually make things worse by not just incorporating the more childish stuff from the novel, but by adding in *more* childish stuff that wasn't even in the book. Belching Dwarfs, a Troll-snot-covered Bilbo or a guano-loving wizard driving a bunny-sleigh are nowhere to be found in Tolkien writings. Perhaps most importantly, the film can't seem to hold its tone for more than ten minutes.

There would be nothing wrong with a lighthearted tone in the first half hour and a subsequent shift towards darker material. Which is what the book does: Opening with a comedic sequence in Bag End and moving to scarier scenes like the spider-sequence, Smaug destroying Lake-town or the Battle of the Five Armies. Instead we're constantly shifting between serious and silly. Like in the Radagst scene which starts out like a piece from a Disney-movie and then turns into a pretty intense affair depicting the terrors of Dol Guldur.

At the same time, the writers are desperately looking for conflict where there was none in the source material. Thorin's attitude towards the Elves wasn't exactly friendly in the book, but here he is borderline hostile towards them. And I don't think I'm misreading a single scene here, since he fiercely objects to going to Rivendell, he doesn't want Elrond to view the map (for some reason) and he has to sneak off during the completely superfluous White Council meeting. None of which happened in the book. The Dwarfs didn't get along well with the Elves, but they weren't openly hostile. And neither did the Elves nor anyone else at this point try to stop the company from continuing the quest. It's a bit like the changes done to Faramir in the LOTR-films: Just like him, Rivendell/Elrond become an obstacle for the heroes instead of just an episode in the story.

The funny thing is that the whole hostility-deal does come in later in the narrative of the book as well, but for a much better reason than the one presented in the film. Basically, the writers took this whole element from a later point in the story (the company's imprisonment by Thranduil) and shifted it to an earlier point to give their film a bit more conflict. The problem is that it just doesn't ring true and it makes the Dwarfs look like aggressive imbeciles.

Then there's the White Council: While it is great to see these characters together on screen, the whole sequence was rather pointless. Here are four people talking about stuff foreshadowing the events in LOTR, but none of it has anything to do with Bilbo's/Thorin's story. You could easily leave the whole thing out (and put it into an extended cut) and the movie wouldn't suffer at all. Plus: Let's not forget that the information we get about the Witch King contradicts what Tolkien wrote. Check out the LOTR-wiki for more info on this breach of canon.

Don't get me wrong: I do understand why the writers made these changes. They're obviously trying to give the first 100 pages of the book (because that's what this film covers) the structure of a stand-alone film. But the result isn't exactly successful: We get some stapled on character-development like Thorin's "boy, was I wrong about you"-scene, we get some exaggerated Elves vs. Dwarfs-conflict and we get a main antagonist in the form of Azog where there was none in the book. We also get scenes fleshing out the world of Middle Earth more - which Tolkien-fans will probably love. But if we're honest these are nothing more than glorified filler and stuff meant to link this trilogy to the original one.

All that said, it is rather surprising that I liked the movie as much as I did. It's no "Fellowship" (my personal favourite of the LOTR-films), but it certainly isn't "Phantom Menace"-material, either. Yes, there is a ton of CGI in here which sometimes doesn't *really* work, but overall the world of Middle Earth (according to Jackson) looks as breathtaking as ever. The acting is mostly very good. I especially liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo, who did a much, much better job than Elijah Wood in the original trilogy. He was so good in fact, that I couldn't help but wonder how LOTR would've turned out had he played Frodo.

Bottom line: A must-see if you're a (tolerant) Tolkien-fan who can live with all the changes. But if you're not into Tolkien or even fantasy in general, this probably won't be your cup of tea.

7/10

BioShock Infinite (2013 Video Game)

A great roller-coaster-ride: Pretty, short and not very interactive

[8/10 · 15 April 2013]

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Having just finished my first (and probably only) play-through I tend to agree with some of the more "negative" reviews out there:

• The main characters are very interesting and well written.

• The story is intriguing and is told brilliantly.

• At first glance, the game's universe is absolutely stunning. Well, universe may be too generous a word, since we're not talking about a whole world to explore but rather "just" a city. But I'm sure I'm not the only one to have wandered around Columbia during the first 30 minutes, just to do some "sightseeing". And I'm probably also not the only one whose jaw dropped when the city showed its true, errr, colors.

But (and this is a big "but")...

a masterpiece it is not.

Just like in the first Bioshock, we get great looking levels, art direction, design, story and characters. But that's not enough to make it a masterpiece. After all: This is a *game* we're talking about, not a movie. It sorta reminds me of the better "interactive movies" from the early days of CD-ROM drives .. like "Rebel Assault". Yes: They looked and sounded incredible (for their time) ... but the gameplay and interaction were nothing to write home about. Rebel Assault was not much more than a glorified shooting gallery and interaction in Bioshock is limited to a lot of presses of the "use"-button to rummage through trashcans and to advance the plot. Thus, when the novelty factor of the pretty visuals wears off, game like these lose a lot of appeal.

Plus: Why did they decide to punish us with that *stupid* save-point-system? I want to save whenever *I* choose in a shooter. Oh, and where's the auto-map? Those two are standard since the very first 1st person shooters (even Doom had an auto-map, IIRC). Bioshock 1 also had both, while "Infinite" has neither. Instead we get a "go this way to your current goal, stupid"-kind of arrow, which makes the game feel even more like an interactive movie/story book with limited player involvement. Like much of the levels, the game's story feels like it's running on rails.

And then there's the big one: The fact that the world doesn't really hold up to closer inspection. Like I said before: It all looks great at first, but when you really think about it, the city of Columbia doesn't make sense and it doesn't feel alive. Citizens will speak to you and each other, yes, but they mostly just give a quick sentence or two and after that remain silent and usually immobile. Compare that to the cities of the old "GTA San Andreas", where people were walking around, living their daily lives. Stopping at a corner for a chat with each other and actually reacting to the player character and his actions (or inaction) or even to things happening in the world that had nothing to do with the player. None of this happens in Columbia. In fact, once the shooting starts, civilians simply vanish from the area, never to return. Or what about the weird rules of what is and isn't theft? In some areas, you can simply pick up any item you can get your hands on, in others this will be judged as theft and everyone will become hostile - even if you only use the possession-vigor on a vending machine.

And speaking of Vigors: The game hints at why and how they came to Columbia.. but their presence doesn't make a lot of sense. Who would want to buy them in this city? Why would the authorities even allow such dangerous stuff to be sold freely? And why would a society that's obsessed with "racial purity" even want a substance that alters your DNA? Wouldn't the very narrow-mindedness and religiousness of Columbia's society mean that people who use Vigors would be regarded as freaks and abominations? Plus we don't actually see any citizens using them, the only NPCs who do are high ranking enemies. So why are these things even here? I guess because this is a Bioshock-game and we have to have superpowers in it - as a consequence, the Vigors and everything relating to them (like advertisements) felt stapled on and like a half-assed attempt to inject more Bioshock-DNA into the game (pardon the pun).

Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed both Bioshock and Infinite immensely. But both are by no means perfect shooters. For the next installment, maybe they should concentrate a bit more on producing memorable gameplay and a more interactive environment instead of "just" making the characters, design and story memorable. The settings of both games (Rapture and Columbia) literally scream for an open-world type of game in which we can explore those two fascinating cities with more liberty.

88/100 from me.

S.

Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005)

Don't believe the hype

[8/10 · 7 February 2013]

Re-viewing ENT, especially in direct comparison to TNG, the failure of this show still baffles me.

The ingredients of success are pretty much all here.. you get:

A solid captain. Scott Bakula in no Patrick Stewart, but neither was Bill Shatner. Bakula has the screen presence and acting abilities to carry the show on his shoulders. Also: The character of Archer is unique enough to set him apart from all those captains before him.

Great eye-candy. One could argue that "no body" could ever steal the babe-honors from Jeri Ryan's Seven of Nine, but I'd much rather have T'Pol, thank you very much. And they even tried to please female viewers by throwing in the first male babe in Trek-history. Seriously: Does anyone think Mayweather would've made it onto the ship without that chiseled upper body?

Good production design and best FX work in Trek TV-history. The NX-01 looks great inside and out. The CGI doesn't look cheap and the interior design with its "21st century nuclear sub"-look is spot on. To me, it's a lot more believable than the Enterprise D's "carribean cruise ship" interior.

So what went wrong? A lot of criticism involved the writing and some deviations from established Trek-lore. Granted: The first two seasons do have some less than stellar plots, but when the stories work, they're as strong as anything in Star Trek. Some of my favorite ENT-shows come from the early period, like "A Night in Sickbay", "Dead Stop" or "Minefield".

But I guess the strongest objections all involve ENT being a prequel and the conflicts with established lore that result from this. The Vulcans have been singled out in particular.

I for one really enjoy those new Vulcans. Their portrayal is different from what we've seen before, yes. But what *have* we actually seen before? If we're honest, the Vulcans as a race never played that big a part in earlier shows - mostly, it was just Spock. So you could boil all the anti-Vulcan sentiments down to "ENT's Vulcans aren't like Spock, so the show sucks".

Making the Vulcans semi-antagonists was actually quite clever. It gets your attention, it makes you wonder why they were behaving like this and what would happen to eventually transform them into the Vulcans we've seen in earlier shows. Also: Having them all behave like Spock-clones would've made the Vulcans pretty boring in my book. ENT actually manages to give them an arc, culminating in the brilliant Vulcan multi-parter in season four.

To balance things out, here are some of my criticisms with this show:

• Writing sometimes uninspired.

• Main characters are a mixed bag (Mayweather and Hoshi are mostly just forgettable).

• 3rd season story-arc. It was a nice idea, but it ran out of steam half-way through the season.

• Absence of established technology not used to its full potential. You'd think that the absence of, say, the universal translator would be a bigger deal for a ship like NX-01. But they simply throw in another magical linguistic device in the shape of Hoshi.

• Overuse of time-travel, especially in seasons 01&02

• Theme song.

If you like TNG and haven't watched ENT yet, give it a shot. The slow shows of seasons one and two are actually pretty good and by season four, the show really hits its stride. Overall, I'd say ENT's hit-miss-ratio is better than TNG's.

Overall rating: 08/10

Prometheus (I) (2012)

No science, bad fiction

[6/10 · 22 January 2013]

Two hipster "scientists" persuade a dying ultra-rich guy to fund a trillion-dollar expedition to a star system 40 light years from Earth. They don't do this based on evidence but based on what they "choose to believe" - because beliefs and convictions have always been more important to scientists and rich guys than facts and evidence. The rich guy's motivation for all this? He's older than Mr. Burns, dying and wants to tag along to meet his maker to obtain more life from him. Obviously never watched Blade Runner, this one ..

Prometheus was without a doubt one of the most eagerly awaited films of 2012. And with Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit also coming out that year, that's saying a lot. Expectations were sky-high and it was pretty clear that the filmmakers would have to pull off a small miracle to meet them.

On paper, everything looked pretty good: Ridley Scott was back in the director's chair. Not only was this his first science-fiction film in decades, but also his first film ever that's based on one of his previous efforts. The cast looked good and early stills and trailers made it pretty clear that this wouldn't be a soulless greenscreen-fest with second rate effects and cheap sets (AvP anyone?). Then, shortly before release, the fans got the icing on the cake with the confirmation of the R-rating. How could this thing possibly suck? Well, my first paragraph should give you an idea.

It's certainly not the look and feel of the film. Those aspects are spot on. If you like the look of Ridley Scott's excellent Alien and Blade Runner, you'll be in for a (visual) treat. And during the first hour of the film, the whole thing is really gripping - despite the idiotic characters and highly illogical plot. But a gripping first hour does not a good movie make.

The story, starting with the basic premise, is just plain idiotic. There really isn't anything that makes sense. The characters fit right into this however, because they too act like morons and none of them seem to have any motivation for their actions. Breathing the air on an alien planet? "Don't be such a skeptic!" Trying to pet a clearly hostile vagina-penis that's hissing at you? "It's OK, baby ..." One exception is David (the android) whose actions are all pretty sinister, but at least we understand why he takes them.

And while I'm talking characters .. It's pretty clear that the writers wanted to give us a mix of the kind of characters we got in Alien and Aliens. We get the strong female lead (Shaw/Ripley). We get the level-headed black dude who is in command (à la Sgt. Apone), the corporate suit who only thinks in profits and dividends (Vickers/Burke), the evil android (Ash/David), etc. The problem is that in Prometheus, we don't get to know any of those people, there are too many of them plus none of them are likable. So when they start dying, we either don't know who just bought it or we don't care. In contrast, Alien almost had the feel of a stage production. There weren't that many characters, we got to meet and know all of them before anything sinister happened and consequently we did care when they were bumped off later in the film.

The biggest problem however remains the writing. I'm not even sure that Scott and his writers knew what type of story they were trying to tell. The whole thing is visually stunning and some of the acting is really good, but there's no clear focus to the film: Alien was conceived as "Jaws in space".. and that's what it is. Well, maybe "Friday the 13th in space" would be more accurate.

But Prometheus aims to be something grander, something more important. It's about life, it's about creation, it's about who we are, who made us and why. It wants to be less like "Friday the 13th" and more like "2001 - A Space Odyssey". But here's the problem: When you're trying to tell a story with some deeper meaning, you better have *some* ideas or concepts to impress your audience with. Prometheus takes the cheap route: It simply raises more and more questions - some of which are interesting or even intriguing. But it never gives us any satisfying answers. Or in other words: It's all build-up and no payoff.

Watch it for some stunning visuals, great production design and an excellent Michael Fassbender in the role of David. Beyond that, there isn't much here to get excited about.

6/10

Star Trek: The Next Generation: Lessons (1993) Season 6, Episode 19

Lessons? What lessons?

[6/10 · 29 November 2012]

Summary: Picard learns the hard way that business and romance don't mix.

Jean-Luc Picard is "a very private man". We don't see him connect to other people on a personal level very often. So it's a welcome change to have the captain meet and fall for a woman for once.

As an added bonus, his love-interest (Cmd. Daren) is written pretty well and we can buy him falling in love with her: She's brilliant, cultured, witty, outspoken and physically attractive enough. Plus Picard and her actually have common interests besides working on a starship - something Hollywood frequently ignores when matching up characters. The actual "falling in love"-moment is done very well, with Picard talking about his experience during "The Inner Light". Both the writing and acting are good and help to sell that scene.

When they get together, it's TNG's format which instantly raises alarm-bells with the audience: We know that the laws of a weekly TV-show won't allow Picard to fall for a guest-star character and stay with her. So right from their first kiss, we wonder how the writers will break up the newly formed relationship. And it's here where the plot falls apart.

After a false lead involving Picard's awkward treatment of her in public, the story goes for the obvious choice: Placing Picard in a position where he has to put his love-interest in a dangerous situation. It's done in such a rushed way that you can almost feel the writer's desperation to have everything "back to normal" by the end of the episode.

And it just doesn't ring true. Picard has put his senior officers into countless life-threatening situations before. Including Dr. Crusher who he clearly has feelings for. He never asked her or anyone else to apply for a transfer. Plus: How realistic is it for the head of stellar cartography to be part of a dangerous away mission like the one in the show (or in fact any dangerous away mission)? She struck me more as the brainy type, someone who'd run experiments in a laboratory. Not someone who'd routinely run around on dangerous planets or who'd get sent into a firefight.

To me, it would've been much more interesting if the writers had actually dared to keep Daren on the show for a couple of episodes. It would've broken the "reset everything for the next show"-routine and would have been a nice opportunity to explore the Picard-character as a private man.

As it is, the title of the show doesn't have any real meaning: What lesson did Picard learn? It's pretty standard knowledge that mixing business and romance can be tricky (although other characters like Riker don't seem to have a problem with it at all). And the way they both agree to end their relationship isn't earth-shattering either: Nobody really gets hurt and come next episode, the Daren-character is completely forgotten. So there are no real lessons or consequences here.

6/10

Star Trek: The Next Generation: Chain of Command, Part I (1992) Season 6, Episode 10

Great acting, interesting story - based on a pretty weak premise

[7/10 · 25 November 2012]

Since everyone seems to have loved this two-parter, I'll play devil's advocate here and point out some of the things that didn't make sense.

Summary: With tensions brewing on the Cardassian border, Picard, Crusher and Worf are sent into enemy territory to conduct a top secret mission. While they do their thing, the remaining Enterprise command-crew (under their new CO Cpt. Jellico) enter into negotiations with the Cardassians.

Things I liked:

The basic idea for the episode is top notch. Replacing Picard with an officer who is pretty much his polar opposite is very interesting. Ronny Cox does a great job of portraying the hard-ass Jellico. His questionable style of command and "diplomacy" put a great deal of stress on the crew (mostly on Riker) and this leads to some pretty tense confrontations - both in the negotiating-scenes and in his general interactions with the crew.

Great performances: The scenes between Picard and his torturer (the excellent David Warner) are among the most realistic and disturbing in the entire series. Seeing a Picard who is (literally) stripped of everything and still (barely) stands his ground is enough to give you chills.

Things I didn't like: The entire premise of the show, the things that set the story in motion and keep it going, all don't make sense. So they needed a small team of experts to infiltrate and investigate a hostile planet behind enemy lines, basically a Special-Ops type of mission ... and they turned to a middle-aged starship captain, a middle-aged doctor and a Klingon security chief? I can buy Worf going on the mission, but surely Starfleet must have some specialized group trained for these kinds of missions? Something along the lines of present day Navy SEALs/Delta Force/GSG9?

Naturally, the reasons Picard gives for them having been chosen are laughable: He was picked because he's had experience with a certain type of carrier wave years and years ago. Worf is the muscle (fair enough) and Crusher is there because she knows how to use a tricorder, I guess.

More importantly, Starfleet's handling of the entire situation make them seem rather incompetent.

• They decide to strip the Federation flagship of its CO - not a good idea if you send that ship into a tense situation that might very well lead to a battle or war. They then replace said CO with a guy whose style of leadership is sure to create a number of problems with the crew. This can't be a new personality trait of Jellico's so any higher ranking officer worth his salt should've foreseen the friction he creates on the Enterprise. And all this for no real reason - other than Jellico clearly wanting to establish himself as a hard-ass. There's no payoff to the changes Jellico makes, so they don't seem to have improved the Enterprise's effectiveness. Quite the opposite really, when Jellico first relieves Riker of duty and then has to basically beg the guy to fly a crucial mission.

• Jellico is there because he has extensive experience with the Cardassians - but all he really does in his negotiating scenes is insult the guys. Maybe that's the way to handle Cardassians, but then Troi confirms that Jellico isn't really as sure of himself as he's trying to appear. So he's clearly not the best man for the job - he basically comes across as pretty weak and incompetent. Again: Picard is a highly respected diplomat and someone who knows how to de-escalate a situation. He's not a special-forces operative.. so why use him in this capacity when he would be much more valuable at his usual post? Instead of using him, Starfleet sends in a "diplomat" who is sure to alienate the Cardassians every chance he gets. And these guys want to prevent war? Hmmm..

Finally: The Cardassians' motivation doesn't make sense. They want Picard because they hope to gain information from him regarding the defense strategy for a system they want to invade/annex. They come up with this elaborate plan to lure Picard into a trap. A plan which requires extensive knowledge of Picard. But they didn't know he wouldn't be able to provide them with this information? And said information doesn't seem too important anyway. When they realize they can't get it from Picard, they still seem determined to attack anyway.. so why even go through this elaborate ruse to capture him? And I haven't even mentioned the fact that their entire plan hinges on Starfleet cooperating and sending in Picard to infiltrate the planet.

All that said: I still like Chain of Command a lot. The acting is great, the basic ideas are good and the unusual situations the writers create are interesting to watch and give some new insights into the characters. I just wish they could've come up with a better reason for Picard getting replaced by Jellico and then getting captured and tortured.

All in all: 7/10

Star Trek: Enterprise: Stigma (2003) Season 2, Episode 14

Clumsy at times, but still enjoyable

[7/10 · 27 May 2012]

So this is it: Star Trek's gay-episode. While I'm not a huge Trek-nerd, I've come to appreciate the franchise (minus most of the TNG-films) over the past few years. I'm also aware that they always wanted to do a "gay" episode but "never got around to it" until Enterprise. That in itself is fine by me, since making comments on current issues in a sci-fi-setting is one thing Trek has been known to do since TOS.

However: Making a statement about gay people/AIDS in 2003 is hardly what I'd call "being topical". It would've been a lot more appropriate or even daring in the 80s or 90s. Still: I didn't mind the subject matter.

What I did mind were some minor points with the plot.

Phlox setting the plot in motion almost makes him look stupid. Using the age-old "a *friend* of mine (who is totally not me) has this problem" request is bad enough. But he also doesn't address the fact that he's asking for data on a Vulcan disease while he has a Vulcan science officer on his ship. He should've just told the doctors beforehand "I have discussed this with T'Pol but her medical expertise is extremely limited ... that's why I'm asking you guys for help.". Also: His decision to not inform Archer before making his request is also kinda odd. Yes, there's doctor/patient confidentiality, but he should know by now that he can trust Archer *and* that this guy has a right to know about T'Pol's condition. Seems odd to me that he didn't try harder to convince T'Pol that Archer knowing would be in her best interest.

Anyhow: The whole analogy of "Stigma" couldn't be more obvious if the writers had called the disease "T'aids". Still: They make some valid points. The tone of the episode can be rather preachy at times, but when you're dealing with the discrimination of minorities and stigmatized diseases, it's kinda hard to not get preachy. Plus: The B-story of Phlox' horny wife trying to access Trip's matter-injector works pretty well as counter-balance.

Now, since a lot of people seem to hate ENT's Vulcans, and this is a very Vulcan-centric episode, here are my thoughts on them: I don't mind the Vulcans being different from the ones in earlier ST-series. I think it's actually pretty cool that the creators of ENT decided to make the Vulcans intolerant and somewhat hypocritical pricks. After all: This is 100 years prior to Spock et all, so why *shouldn't* those earlier Vulcans be different? It gives them a pretty cool arc, albeit a retrofitted one. It would've been a lot more boring to have them behave exactly like Spock and it would've made the Vulcans less versatile as characters. In fact: The characters themselves would've been a lot more boring. How interesting can you make people who'll always do what's logical, don't lie and never seem to have any egotistical motivations?

Vulcan behavior in this episode is a lot more varied than what we're used to seeing from the older shows: You have the intolerant doctors, the one doctor who secretly isn't so intolerant (and whose behavior foreshadows what the Vulcans of TOS will be like) and, of course T'Pol. Her decision to do what she thinks is right, even if it means losing her job, not only makes for the drama in the story, but advances the character and gains her respect from both the audience and her colleagues. I also enjoyed watching Archer standing up for T'Pol - probably marking his final acceptance of her as both his first officer and a person. Also good: Trip's uneasiness and Phlox' "tolerance" regarding Mrs. Phlox' not-so-subtle advances provided some much needed levity.

Overall, Stigma is a pretty solid effort in my book.

7/10

Revenge (I) (1990)

They had it coming

[4/10 · 10 December 2010]

***Warning: Major Spoilers Ahead!!***

After years of looking for this movie (it never came out on DVD over here in Germany), I finally watched it on pay-TV last night. It was the theatrical version and, thank God, it was even uncut. The picture quality was very good ... almost looked like a restored version.

I haven't seen the DC yet, just checked out an illustrated comparison of the two versions on the web. BUT: I can definitely see why Scott wanted to re-cut the film after all these years. For a movie titled "Revenge", it sure drags quite a bit - not just in the beginning but in the second and third acts as well. Worrying news for an action-/revenge-flick. Sadly, no matter how much you'll cut out of this film (or cut back in), it still lacks good characters, a believable plot or compelling action-scenes.

Cochran (Costner) has got to be the worst character in the entire movie: A selfish, cocky and immature, well, a$$hole, who somehow has a powerful Mexican mafia-don (Quinn) as his best friend. And despite said Don's obvious power and ruthlessness, Cochran thinks that starting an affair with his hot, young and neglected wife (Stowe) would be a good idea. Some scenes involving Costner are pain-inducingly awful. Like the one where he gets showered with gifts by his fellow navy pilots. It's probably meant to show us what a cool dude he is. What it actually does is make him look like an arrogant prick. Or later, when Quinn comes to his house and all but *tells* him that he knows something is going on between Costner and Stowe - and even leaves him a way out by asking Cochran to fly him down to Caracas (instead of taking off to the country with his new lover). After Costner refused Quinn for the third time in this scene, his character lost all credibility along with my sympathy.

And that's bad news in a story like "Revenge": If the audience can't identify with the hero, why should they care about his fate? I for one didn't feel sorry for Cochrane or the wife during their ordeal at the hand's of Quinn's thugs. The way they acted, they were practically *asking* for Quinn's revenge.

Which brings me neatly to the movie's title. It's not quite clear who is exacting revenge in the story: The cheated husband (Quinn) or the beaten-and left-for-dead lover (Costner). If it's the former, it seems pretty exaggerated, since brutally beating his friend and slicing his wife's face and then selling her into prostitution feels rather harsh for a weekend of sex. If it's the latter, the titular revenge seems rather half-assed. Cochrane does kill a couple of thugs, but when he finally gets to Quinn, instead of killing him in a cruel and creative way, he apologizes for his wrong-doings and lets him go.

The sad thing about this movie is that behind all the awkward characterization you can see glimpses of how this could've been a good, dark, gritty revenge-pic. Sadly however, it never really delivers.

4/10

Star Trek: Enterprise: Cogenitor (2003) Season 2, Episode 22

About as subtle as a Ferengi in a clown-suit

[5/10 · 28 October 2010]

Unlike some people, I do like Enterprise and I do like its first two seasons for their often slow pace and their attempt to show a Starfleet-crew doing actual exploring. With gems like "Minefield" or "A Night in Sickbay" a lot of my personal favorites come from season 2. However: "Cogenitor" isn't one of them ... far from it, actually.

The whole point of the story is pretty obvious: It's another one of those Enterprise-episodes that are meant to explore the path(s) that lead to the creation of established Trek-lore - in this case, the Prime Directive. That's all well and good - after all: Enterprise is a prequel-show and should explore those aspects of early Starfleet-missions and how they shaped the world of TOS and TNG.

The execution is clunky at best though. While exploring a star, Enterprise meets another ship on a similar mission, populated by a friendly, helpful and more advanced people. Archer and the alien captain immediately like each other and decide to go on a three-day-mission together. They *really* must like each other a lot BTW, since the small capsule they use doesn't seem to have a bathroom or even a sink on board ... yikes! Anyway: Meanwhile, Malcolm gets to establish a very close relationship with the aliens' hot (and female) security-chief (good for him) and Trip gets a free lesson in advanced warp-engine-design.

It's here that the whole thing veers off course. Even though the aliens are more than willing to explain their technology to Trip (an engineer's wet dream, I suppose), he somehow seems more interested in their reproductive-process, which involves a third gender. This third gender, the titular "Cogenitor", is treated more like an object than a living being by the aliens: They don't have names, aren't allowed education and are simply assigned to couples who wish to have a baby. Trip switches to the mindset of a 15-year-old, declares the aliens' treatment of the Cogenitors "inhumane" and sets off on a personal mission to undermine their culture. Despite repeated warnings from T'Pol he keeps pursuing his mission, teaches the Cogenitor how to read (in one day!) and ends up alienating the aliens and eventually even killing the Cogenitor.

Now, the message of the episode couldn't be more obvious. "Don't judge other cultures, don't interfere with them and, for God's sake, don't show them 'The Day the Earth stood still' or they might end up killing themselves". That's all well and good, but the way the authors hammer this message home just seems way too constructed and unnatural. At the same time, it makes one of the main characters look like a thick-headed imbecile. Trip is a Commander in Starfleet and it's not like he's out on his first First-Contact-mission. Finding the treatment of the third gender "wrong" is one thing, but repeatedly breaking every rule (lying, sneaking behind the aliens' backs) to act on these feelings doesn't seem right for him - even if he is a pre-Prime-Directive-character. It's more like a thing that, in TNG, Wuss-ley Crusher would've done. The only redeeming factors are T'Pol's warnings, Archer's chewing-out of his friend for his stupid actions and, of course, the ending, which actually dares to follow Trip's weird behavior to its logical conclusion.

5/10

The Expendables (2010)

Sadly, an expendable movie

[5/10 · 28 August 2010]

Let me start with two caveats: 1. I watched the German-dubbed-version of the movie 2. My seat wasn't that great (fourth row from the front), which probably exaggerated the annoying quick cuts and shaky camera-work.

I wasn't expecting great story-telling or even a great action-flick like "Die Hard". What I did expect from "The Expendables" was a celebration of dumb-but-cool 80s action flicks. Say "Commando" with better production values. Sadly, the movie doesn't deliver that. It's more like the dumb-but-bad 80s flicks à la "Stone Cold". Read: Too self-conscious and too concerned with creating a set of oh-so-cool characters. I mean, come on: A bunch of guys in their 40s/50s and 60s living/working in an "MTV meets Ed Hardy"-style garage, riding around on custom-bikes when they're not off in some foreign country to kill terrorists? Even back in the 80s that would've been a stupid setup. What's wrong with the classic premise of having a bunch of retired pros who are driven out of retirement by a strong incentive (tons of money, unspeakable injustice, challenge by a former ally turned traitor, loved one(s) in despair, etc.) and reluctantly go on one last mission?

But my main gripe with the movie is its lack of good writing. There's not one memorable line that stuck with me, and I just watched the movie two hours ago. If an action-flick is highly quotable, it's usually a good film. You know, stuff like "Yippi-ky-yay-motherf**ker!" or "Let off some steam" or "Consider this a divorce". No one-liners of this caliber are uttered in this show, but then again, see my caveat number 1.

The "serious" dialogue (Mickey Rourke's terrible close-up-speech) seems forced and stapled on, none of the characters are even vaguely fleshed out. Yes, I know they're all tough bad-asses in a no-brains-all-testosterone movie, but even these kind of characters need *some* background to make me care enough about them - and to explain their motivation to go out and mow down baddies by the dozen. Even the mercenaries in "Predator" were less cartoony than the Expendables - and that says a lot. Two or three of the team aren't really introduced at all and are missing for the entire second act. Plus there's no real arc in the story. At no point do our heroes seem really threatened or likely to fail, and none of the good guys die (or even get tortured). And what's their mission again? Not that I cared much after a while, but in a straightforward action-movie, the goal of the heroes should be equally straightforward and plausible.

The villains were underused, not properly introduced and didn't get their deserved showdowns. Plus they weren't nearly evil enough. They're action-movie-villains for cryin' out loud. As such they *should* torture innocent farmers, mutilate little kids and/or their dogs for breakfast and rape nuns/missionaries/ophaned teenagers by the dozen. Rambo 4's gruesome showdown only worked so well because the movie showed the incredible atrocities of the Burmese military in such gory detail.

One of the villains in "The Expendables" even survives his "death" and is welcomed back to the team by the end of the film, even though he betrayed them. Now that, according to 80s-action-flick-rules, is a strict "no-no". A traitor has to die a horrible death at the hands of the hero. Anyhow: I'd rather hire Bennet from "Commando" as my evil henchman than any of the thugs in Expendables.

Which leads me to the action-scenes. Yes, there's plenty of them and the gore-factor is rather high (sadly not as high as in the excellent Rambo 4). Problem is that when the action starts there's almost too much of it and it's filmed and cut in a way that you can't really follow what's going on most of the time. Plus the big showdown takes place at night and on a location that isn't really shown to us beforehand. So we never really know where everyone is in relation to everyone else. If you hated the car chase in "A Quantum of Solace", you probably won't like much of the action in "The Expendables".

So, if you're looking for a film about a bunch of aging warriors doing what they do best, a movie with cool dialogue, good action scenes and a healthy amount of blood, go and rent "The Wild Geese" - just fast forward all scenes with that annoying kid. That old flick is a lot more entertaining, better written and a lot more believable than "The Expendables".

The Wolfman (2010)

Not truly great, but surely one of the best werewolf-films

[7/10 · 12 August 2010]

I didn't expect much of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised by "The Wolfman".

First of all, I was delighted that they produced it as a period piece. Classic horror-tales (and what could be more classic than a werewolf-movie?) seem to work best when set in Victorian England. The dialog, mannerisms and gorgeous production design are spot on - as is the casting. Del Torro's unusual looks serve him well here - even when he's not in a horror-film he always has something of an animal about him.

I was also thrilled to see that they didn't try to make this show into a PG-13-affair. If you like your horror-flicks juicy, you'll probably love The Wolfman. If only some of the other classic 30s-monsters (The Mummy, Dracula, Frankenstein) had gotten a similar treatment for their reboots. Speaking of which: It's also a good thing that this movie takes itself seriously. Unlike "The Mummy", which never dared to be a true horror-movie and wound up as weird adventure-flick with bad dialog, tacky "humor" and a disappointing creature, The Wolfman never winks at the audience or shies away from the gruesome nature of its subject. After all: Getting attacked by a werewolf should result in a bloody mess.

"The Wolfman" isn't without flaws though: Strangely enough, the story lacks the ultimate thrill that I'd expect from an old fashioned horror-film. There are some attempts to lure the audience into false security and then shock them out of their seats, but those announce themselves well in advance and thus never quite work. Especially the nightmare-sequences were done much better and more effective (read: scarier) in "An American Werewolf in London". The creature itself looks great and the transformation scenes are pretty solid as well. However: The full werewolf running over rooftops looks too obviously like a CGI-sequence. Other CGI-effects are a mixed bag as well: There's a bear and a deer who both look about as real as the gopher and monkeys in Indiana Jones 4.

So in short: While I still prefer other werewolf-films (An American Werewolf in London, Wolfen), this one's far from being a stinker. It's way better than recent attempts at the subject such as "Twilight" (*shudder*) or those dreadful "Underworld"-flicks. If you like your horror classic, your setting and characters dark and your monster-attacks gory, you should check it out.

Avatar (2009)

My neck hurts, but: What a movie!

[8/10 · 28 December 2009]

Going into the theater, I didn't put too much hope into this film. Even though I love pretty much all of Cameron's work (with the exception of, maybe, Piranha II), these days you can't take the quality of a movie for granted just because a big director is at the helm. Just look at the Star Wars prequels or Indy 4.

I saw Avatar on one of the biggest screens in my hometown on X-Mas-day, it was pretty much sold out and I could only get a very bad seat: first seat in row four..ouch! But you know what? Once the film started, I hardly noticed the uncomfortable viewing-position. This alone and the fact that I also hardly noticed the 160-min running time speak volumes for the quality of the film. It's been a long time since I've seen such a strange, beautiful, "realistic" and fantastic world brought to life so perfectly on the screen. It really puts Lucas and his Star Wars prequels to shame.

And yet: Even though I know that 60% of the action is CGI, I never lost my suspension of disbelief. The creatures look so life-like, the blend between real actors and computer-graphics is so seamless that it never distracts you. Granted: The story is pretty much a rehash of Last Samurai/Dances with Wolves, even down to details such as the love-story or certain characters' fates. But so what? The love-story itself should be old news ever since Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, but good variations of the theme still can cut it in our modern age. So does Avatar: Cameron shows once again why effect-fests like Transformers simply don't work: If you don't have a good story and likable, fleshed-out characters you can throw in all that CG-crap you want: The film's not gonna draw you in. Effects should always be used as a means to tell your story, to enhance your vision. And even though Avatar is full of some of the most amazing CGI I've ever seen, Cameron uses it just as that: as a film-making tool, albeit, a very powerful one.

Before this gets too long, let me close by highly recommending that you watch Avatar in 3D. The process works amazingly well, is used pretty subtly here and there wasn't a single shot that felt like they were just showing off the 3D-capabilities. If you've seen "Jaws 3D", you know what kind of shots I'm talking about.

The Red Baron (2008)

The Red Baron as a pacifist ... yeah, right!

[4/10 · 13 October 2009]

Let me start by saying that I won't go into detail about all the historical inaccuracies, there are just too many of them.

They're just one of the many big disappointments n the "The Red Baron". Perhaps the biggest flaw is the script, which doesn't really have a story to tell. What were they thinking when they based the whole script around the tired old "soldier meets beautiful nurse with a heart of gold who opens his eyes to the carnage around him"-convention? Von Richthofen was not an ignorant man. Historical records show that he did see the appalling conditions in the trenches first-hand, so he wasn't oblivious to the fact that war is an ugly business. But: He was also a man of his time and most of all a career-soldier and a Prussian aristocrat. Do the filmmakers *really* think that a man of his background would tell Ludendorff and Hindenburg the war was unwinnable and they should just stop it? Or that he would get cocky with the Kaiser? On a similar note: Richthofen (like most people of his time) certainly did see the air-war as a chivalrous endeavor. However: He also knew that his task was to destroy enemy planes. He was glad when he could bring an opponent down alive and shake his hand, but he was certainly not a pacifist fighter-pilot. In fact: It was common practice at the time to aim for the pilot, because due to the construction of WW1-planes and due to the weapons they used that was the surest and quickest way to get a kill.

All of this is quite easily explained: The film was written in the 21st century, with 21st century values and morales and the atrocities of Nazi-Germany in WW2 in mind. You can almost feel the need of the author to squeeze in the "War is bad!"-message wherever possible. That's not at all how people in Europe thought in the days of WW1.

My second big gripe is the choice of action-sequences. Being something of an aviation-nut, I could tell you from the top of my head which real life events in von Richthofen's life would *have* to be in a film about him.

1. His relationship to Boelcke and Boelcke's death. This was the guy who practically invented the rules of air-combat ("Dicta Boelcke"), rules which largely still apply today. Plus Boelcke was von Richthofen's mentor and the guy who saw the young Baron's potential early on.

2. von Richthofen's duel with Hawker. One of the classic dogfights of all time. It supposedly lasted for several minutes and featured two combatants who were evenly matched. How can you *not* have that duel in the picture?

3. Werner Voss' death. Again: One of the all-time-greats when it comes to aerial combat. Voss fought an entire elite-squadron of the RFC and damaged all of their planes before he was finally shot down.

4. von Richthofen's head injury and the effect it had on his behavior. A lot of experts believe that the brain damage he suffered from that wound, led to him ignoring one of his elementary rules in his final dogfight. He got fixated on his target, followed him to the deck and over into British territory, leading to his death by MG-fire from the ground.

5. The Baron's death itself.

All of those were only hinted at in the film - that's like making a film like Gladiator without once showing actual gladiatorial combat.

The film is not without some strong points however: The CGI-dogfights do look convincing and the set-design and costumes are pretty much spot-on. Watch it for those points alone, but don't expect an historically accurate depiction of von Richthofen's life. He, along with all the other characters, is not fleshed out one bit, so in the end, we don't really care who lives and dies.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Hats off to Ford, shame on Lucas

[4/10 · 5 June 2008]

Having read some of the comments on here and having seen the movie in a nearly empty theater just now (OK, OK, Sex and the City was showing on the largest screen in the house), I can't do anything but agree with most criticism already voiced here. The cinematography looked nothing like the old movies. This was especially noticeable during the scenes in Indy's college. In the old films it looked like a dignified, warm and pleasant place - in Skulls it looked dull, boring and uninteresting. The overuse of CGI got on my nerves as well. Why the hell didn't they do what Lucas promised and went for "real" action and FX? And what were those scenes with the CG-gophers and the monkeys about? *shrug*

My main gripe however is the lack of a decent script. A good Indy-story should have a single "main object" for our hero to pursue (Ark, Holy Grail), and some minor artifacts he needs to collect on the way (headpiece of the staff of Ra, knight's shield) in order to find the main MacGuffin. In the fourth film, there's nothing to keep us really interested, no legendary object for our hero to pursue ... or maybe I missed the part where they explained why he needed to find the lost city and what was so interesting about it. And when he finally gets there, it just looks like someone's attic or a garage sale.

All this is especially painful to me since secretly I had always hoped they'd adapt one of the greatest Indy-stories for the big screen in the fourth film: The story of Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, the 1992 adventure-game by LucasArts. That ancient piece of computer code had a much better story, better characters, better villains, better and more humor and even more believable action scenes than movie number four. It also had a great ending and a much better soundtrack.

Final verdict: Go and see it (if you must), but don't expect the same magic as in parts 1 and 3. Don't even expect anything like Temple of Doom (the weakest of the old trilogy). Indy 4 is more like a better version of a modern Indy-ripoff (The Mummy, National Treasure), with the added bonus of an excellent and very fit Harrison Ford. 4/10

Grand Prix (1966)

Brilliant on, mediocre off the track

[8/10 · 8 August 2007]

Grand Prix is one of those films that simply couldn't be made today. This fact is mentioned over and over in the extras on the excellent DVD-edition, and rightly so. Back in the 60s, F1 racing was still much more "innocent" (and more exciting) than the multi-billion-dollar media-circus it is today. Just imagine someone trying to get Bernie Ecclestone and the teams to allow a film-crew to use F1-tracks on a race-weekend or even to film in the pits/paddock-area of today's F1 - for free! Or imagine having a bunch of actors drive around in real race-cars on real tracks at break-neck speed in today's safety-obsessed world - impossible.

Well, Frankenheimer did all that back in the 60s and for that reason alone the movie is required watching for anyone who has even a slight interest in cars or motor sports. GP offers us a pretty realistic glimpse of an era gone-by - and it doesn't shy away from the gruesome reality and dangers of motor-racing in the 60s. This realism alone makes GP stand out. The filmmakers didn't simulate races, they actually had the actors racing cars on the original tracks and filmed it. The result is astonishing and really gives a feeling of what it must've been like to sit in one of those beautiful deathtraps at speeds of around 300 km/h. The excellent cinematography, editing and music add to this unique experience and they also give the picture that typical 60s-feel (the opening credits alone are worth the price of admission in my book).

On a side note: Being a racing-fan myself, I can't help but wonder why Frankenheimer didn't include the race at the Nürburgring. Back in those days, F1 still used the 20km+ Nordschleife-version of the track, possibly the most demanding and "scary" circuit ever.

Naturally: Between races the movie loses momentum. That's not so much caused by some weak dialog or the predictable plot - it's s just that those incredible scenes on the tracks simply steal the show. No wonder that I find myself fast-forwarding through a lot of the dialog.

In short: 10/10 for the action on the racetracks - 6/10 for the scenes off the track = 8/10

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Far from perfect but easily the best of the prequel-trilogy

[6/10 · 27 July 2007]

Just like "The Empire Strikes Back", this movie scores heavily simply for being the darkest one in its trilogy. Here's a film that contains some of those "legendary" scenes that SW-geeks like myself have been imagining since the early 80s. The Mustafar-duel, Anakin's and Obi-Wan's final moment together and, of course, the transformation into Darth Vader. Those are absolute key moments of the SW-saga and it's obvious that the creators of "Revenge" put a lot of effort into them. Looking at "Sith" (and the other two prequels) one can't help but wonder however, if the back-story to IV, V, VI needed filming at all.

Sadly enough, part 3 suffers from the same weaknesses as the other two prequels: Wooden acting, tremendous over-use of obvious CG-environments and some of the worst dialog ever put on film. The opening crawl alone makes one wonder how Lucas can crank out some of his lines without everyone around him flinching ("Evil is everywhere!").

The story plays out in front of mostly computer-generated sets that do look breathtaking but at the same time you just *know* in the back of your head that they come from a computer. In short: Pretty much every location looks highly artificial. To me, this kills a lot of suspension of disbelief. One of the strongest points of the original trilogy was, in my opinion, the "lived in"/"used" and thus somewhat believable look of the world, something that the new trilogy lacks almost completely.

There are lots of high points however. The opening space-battle for instance is simply awesome. There's so much going on and so many vessels involved that you really have to watch it on a big screen to take it all in.

Like in EP I and II, the casting is a mixed bag. Some actors are very good or almost perfect in their parts (Ian McDiarmid, Sam Jackson, Ewan McGregor) while others are just painful to watch. Hayden Christensen is better than in "Clones" (which doesn't really say a lot) but he still looks more like a whining, misguided kid than a deeply troubled man who's about to sell his soul to the devil. I'm not even saying that it's entirely his fault .. the script he has to work with here is full of incredibly bad lines, still: a better actor certainly would have done a better job with the character of Anakin.

Speaking of the script: The transformation/seduction of Anakin seems rushed and just doesn't ring true (at least if you're older than, say, 12 years). I don't care in what century or galaxy you live: People just don't behave like this. Dialogue about "my new POWERS!" reminded me of similar bad exchanges from cheap Saturday-morning cartoons like "Masters of the Universe".

Other scenes of that caliber include the death of Dooku ("hmm.. err .. I really shouldn't ...") or Anakin's exchange with Padme about him wanting "more POWER" ... ouch! And then there's the final transformation of Anakin of course which, again, is a mixed bag. Stunning visuals and incredible sound design should make this a memorable scene, but Lucas manages to spoil it with a few lines of dialog, ending with Vader delivering his now-infamous scream of "NOOOOOOOOOOO!". James Earl Jones must've chuckled to himself when he had to deliver that line.

The sad thing is: As with most bad dialog in this movie, I just *know* that with a bit more polishing, tweaking and more careful directing, most of these scenes could have been a lot better. And this is what really bothers me about this film. Taken for what it is, "Sith" is a solid, entertaining piece of sci-fi, but it lacks that final "magic touch" to be a Star Wars-film. Too bad Lucas seems to concentrate too much on visuals and effects (as proved by his constant, unnecessary tinkering with the original trilogy) and doesn't pay enough attention to the actual performances of his actors.

But then again, the Star Wars-badge is the one thing that saves the entire prequel trilogy. Without the Star Wars-logo/back-story any of the three (especially EP I) would've quickly been forgotten and wouldn't nearly have had the success that they did.

6/10

Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Drumhead (1991) Season 4, Episode 21

"...spreading fear in the name of righteousness..."

[8/10 · 26 April 2007]

Sounds familiar? Like many TNG-episodes, this one isn't driving its point home very subtly, but does a good job at it nevertheless. One of the main factors has got to be Patrick Stewart's magnificent acting, especially in his interrogation scene. This guy is in a class of his own.

Yes, the whole way the villain collapses in a fit of rage in the end and lets her real ideas and purposes be seen clearly is not very realistic and obviously designed to bring the plot to an end in the last 5 minutes of the episode. Like so many other TNG episodes, the writers seemed to want to squeeze too much into the 45-minute time-slot and then they'd have to rush the ending.

What surprised me most were countless lines of dialog that have a very eerie quality with regards to our current political climate and especially the shift in politics in the US since 9/11. Considering the air-date (1991), this only confirms how true Picard's statement about how quickly people are willing to blindly trade their liberties for "security" really is.

8/10

War of the Worlds (2005)

Disappointing and somewhat "rushed"

[4/10 · 3 December 2005]

Let me start by saying that I was never a big "war of the worlds"-fan. It's not that I didn't like the whole thing, and even though I was aware that it existed, it just never interested me enough to read the book or watch the 50s movie-version.

So I didn't really have any great expectations when I watched Spielberg's version, which looks very much like Minority Report but is far from that movie's quality, originality or vision.

Maybe it's because we've seen so many alien-invasion-movies over the years that the genre is just a parody of itself these days. So perhaps Roger Ebert was right when he suggested that Spielberg should've used the original late 19th century-setting instead of setting the movie in the present time.

But I'm rambling.

What really annoyed me was not so much the fact the Spielberg kept stealing from himself (most obvious in the "eye in the cellar"-scene) I also didn't really mind that Tom Cruise just didn't come off as a typical "Joe 6-pack" (he was terribly mis-cast IMO).

I can't quite put my finger on it, but when the movie was over I had a strange feeling that the whole thing seemed rushed, especially towards the end. At this time I didn't know about the tight schedule "War of the Worlds" was produced on, but when Spielberg talked about it on the Bonus-DVD, it made perfect sense.

Annoying kids: Why oh why does Spielberg feel he needs them? During Jurassic Park, I hoped that the T-Rex would disembowel those two annoying brats in slo-mo and during War of the Worlds I hoped that Cruise's offspring would be turned into "blood-guano" in a long and agonizing scene. I can see why a director/screenwriter would throw in kids to give the hero (and us) something to worry about, but when half the audience hopes that those kids will get eaten by the monster ... something has gone wrong I guess..:-) Gaping plot holes: Yes, some of them may have originated in the source material, but who says that you can't change errors in the original story? - So, let's see: The aliens came to earth millions of years ago, leaving behind their tripods. Then, when there's enough of us to justify the invasion/conversion of earth into an alien greenhouse, they return, fire up their tripods and start zapping people by the millions.

Wait a minute: Why the zapping? If they need us to grow their red "weed", disintegrating us seems like an incredible waste of resources, right? Also: How can something as huge as those tripods have been buried under huge cities without anyone ever noticing? Convenient EMP: Everything electronic fails, but people around Cruise have no problem operating their digital cameras? - Almost invincible aliens suddenly "just run in circles and die" or have "no shields". Huh? Even if the aliens succumbed to earth's bacteria, why would their technology fail? Looking back, it's not that WotW is such a stinker, there *are* some very intense and well done scenes and ironically the best ones have no aliens in them at all (see the "Cruise getting car-jacked"-scene. I have to agree with Mr Ebert once more though when he says that those high-points seem to come from a different reality than the rest of the movie.

Especially the ending seemed rushed and "stapled on". I thought I could hear the writer think: "hmm..now we have these incredibly powerful beings, how the hell are we gonna get rid of them again?" I know that the ending comes directly from the book, but like I said before: Why not change stuff that might irritate the audience? These aliens have planned an invasion for millions of years and can't even take into account or counter a bacterial threat? Puh-lease ...

And lastly: Why the silly happy ending? After all he's been through, Tom walks through the empty streets of Boston and when he arrives he re-enacts the final scene of "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" (minus John Candy and turkey of course)? Serioulsy, I wouldn't have been surprised if they had played "Every time you go away" on the soundtrack during those last, cheesy minutes. Yeah, and of *course* his annoying son survived that huge fireball and somehow managed to get to Boston before Tom...yikes! So in short: A waste of talent and a pretty big letdown for me personally. This is actually the first Spielberg-movie I've watched that left me totally cold most of the time. And I consider myself a big Spielberg-Fan..

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

Not as bad as I expected

[7/10 · 20 September 2005]

I was pretty reluctant to even watch this one, simply because I love both the Alien- and Predator-franchise and didn't want to spoil it for me. After all: I kept reading so many negative reviews that I was surprised not to find AVP in the bottom 100 list on IMDb.

Alien 1 and Aliens both were brilliant films. Totally different from each other, but both great. Alien 3 was not for me and Alien 4...oh well.. lol! Predator 1 was a great Arnie-vehicle, a typical late 80s action-blockbuster with tons of pumped up macho-"actors", big explosions, shell-casings flying around and a huge body count. Predator 2 was like a rabid version of part one, with both gore and body count increased by a fair margin.

What they all had was blood and gore in amounts ranging from "adaequate" (Alien 1) to "nicely overdone" (Predator 1+2).

This, AVP can't offer. It's painfully obvious from the first kill that this film was either cut down to or always intended to be a PG-13 show. Hell, they even "cut" the famous Predator tag line (you know, the one about ugly people who make out with their mothers).

After a while however, this bothered me less and less. I would've loved to see an R-rated AVP of course. After all: These are the two nastiest killers in recent movie history slugging it out. Lest I forget: We do get to see some nice blood and guts, but the blood is all green (Predator's) or yellow (Aliens'), and the guts/brains also belong to Aliens and/or Predators. But: No trophy-taking/skinned victims, no real chest-burster-scenes, no huge gunshot wounds...

What the movie really lacks is sophisticated production design and a budget. This was obviously shot on a tight budget, and while the FX and sets look good, the lack of money does show. Everything looks quite good, but I couldn't stop thinking that with a bigger budget, everything would've looked a lot better.

Let me conclude with the good stuff: Story is OK (for a movie like this), bringing the two...err..three species together in a relatively elegant and plausible way. Acting is mostly good also and the effects are (as mentioned earlier) pretty good for such a "cheap" movie.

The first fight between the two creatures kicks butt, and should satisfy most of the Alien/Predator fans, it did satisfy me anyway.

So, bottom line: Don't be confused by all the negative reviews, this movie isn't all that bad. It's not top-notch action-material either, and I'm positive that with other artist and more money involved, the AVP-idea could be turned into one kick-ass movie.

Das Boot (1981)

The best war movie ever?

[10/10 · 23 May 2000]

I remember watching this film when it was first released in the early eighties. I was impressed back then and continue to be impressed every time I watch it. Great acting, great directing, the ultra-realistic sets deserve special recognition. Although some of the special effects look dated in our times of computerized FX, they do support the story quite effectively.

I've seen several version of the movie, including the original release cut, the U.S. video version and the director's cut on DVD. The version that I recommend though is the six hour TV-cut. It features a lot more character development and scenes from everyday life aboard the U-Boot. If you get a chance, try to get your hands on the TV-version, and see the ultimate cut of "Das Boot".

(10/10)