SeriousMovieCritic Reviews

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

Tacky Bombast - Silly Script - Waste of Talent

[1/10 · 6 March 2010]

Here is a tale of two Lewises. One wrote a small but great children's book that still delights, surprises and enchants. The other wrote a large, artistic series of children's books that push Christian sermons at us in the guise of adventure fantasy. The first author, Lewis Carroll, wrote Alice in Wonderland. The second, CS Lewis, wrote the Narnia saga. Here is what happened – in my theory – when the light bulb went on above the head of Linda Woolverton, who wrote the original screenplay for the new Alice in Wonderland.

"What if we turn Wonderland into Narnia? What if an older Alice revisits her dream world, now called Underland, and discovers a giant battle in progress between good and evil? We could have a Red Queen's army fighting a White Queen's, a Mad Hatter as saintly mediator, and a lot of Armageddon spectacle sure to bring in the youngsters and spawn a video game."

Thus is Hell born. You cannot believe the dreadfulness of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland – gifted director takes on gaga script – until you see it. Enchantment has gone that-away. Once down the rabbit hole Alice, played with brave but doomed grace by Australian actress Mia Wasikowska, discovers that her old chums all walk a darkening land bearing Tolkienish/Lewisite names. The dormouse is Mallymkun, the Cheshire cat Chessur, the caterpillar Absolem. Soon the throng is joined by dragons who seem to have come from Avatar. The tea party has 10 seconds to flatter us with incipient charm – its chaotic table and moth-eaten March Hare suggest a Samuel Beckett revamp (that would be a good spin) – before it too is sacrificed to sword, sorcery and showdown. Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter shows promise for a little longer – this actor does deranged innocence better than anyone (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood) – but finally he too drowns in the Sea of Tacky Bombast.

The Wolfman (2010)

Nice Movie but poor (too dark) cinematography

[1/10 · 13 February 2010]

Expected more of a new twist to this 70 year old tale and was disappointed. The movie itself is watchable and has some nice surprises and gore for the fans of the genre - but what I really hated most is the dark lit cinematography.

Someone on this board praised the set design: how could one even see the details of the set (less the faces)? Every scene was so dark that no color was ever visible (with the exceptions of daylight outdoor scenes). The interior (for example the Victorian dressings) came out as "dark mesh shadows in the background". The actors faces were dark and in the shadow in front of windows with even darker shades for curtains. The Victorian era had nice colors in greens, red etc. I would prefer any Hammer Film over this "dark ride". Often times I was wondering if someone has turned off all the lights on the set.

I got a couple of very recent movies on Blu-Ray (which I have not seen in the cinema) who have all similar problems. It seems to be a new trend in Hollywood. Do directors actually think that this is "artsy" - or are they on hallucination drugs when shooting movies?

Billy Wilder once said that if he wants to win the Foreign Film Oscar he has to shoot out of focus. These days the turn off the lights on the set and hope that audience doesn't notice ......

Remember Last Night? (1935)

DVD Release PLEASE!!

[10/10 · 30 January 2010]

James Whale's work in Hollywood is largely swept under the carpet by Universal. Except of course for his "Frankenstein" movie.

"The Road Home" and "Remember last Night" are both (along with some other of his films) excellent entertainment and were butchered by Universal back the. I have written to scholars and Entertainment Moguls such as Robert Osborne and the Head of Universal Studios to release a restored Box Set of his work.

I sincerely hope that Universal Studios will follows in the footsteps of Warner Brothers who recently have been releasing some of their classic movies as Box Set (such as the W. Powell / Myrna Loy Collection) - or as MOD (Manufactured on Demand). Warner has great success with this franchise and I hope that Universal will wake up as well and follow that example. The most recent releases of "UNIVERSAL VAULT" titles are tired, too few and not worth mentioning.

Avatar (2009)

Waste of Money - Talent - Poor Quality 3D Screening

[1/10 · 21 December 2009]

Attempted to watch this movie in 3D in San Francisco. The first part of the screening was a legitimate fiasco. The audience only saw some double-imaging and couldn't stop talking about the "ghosting'' throughout the film, especially in the background of the live-action sequences. Did some research and it turns out that unlike other technologies, RealD's 3-D process can result in a doubling of image known as "ghosting,'' which in the past has forced the company to create special "ghost-busted'' prints before a film (or file, really) is shipped out to theaters. There are lots of links on "Google" about this and it seems that the San Francisco screening problem is not an isolated incident. It's a global problem in many countries. Since we were unable to see the 3D version we opted to see the 2D version instead. We had to fight to get a partial refund.

The likelihood that the machine projecting "Avatar'' in your neighborhood googolplex is being programmed and run by someone in over his or her head when it comes to new frontiers in exhibition. That means you stand a pretty good chance of seeing that first version of "Avatar'' rather than the second. And guess what? You're paying extra for it, too.

Someone asked me if I liked the movie and I replied: give me 500 Million to design a website and it will look awesome as well. The storyline is thin and all too common, there is not much "real life" acting, there are no great sets and costumes. The whole movie experience is based on super expensive CGI effects and that's all! It seems that James Cameron has left the film making process to a handful of gifted CGI Artists - who did a great job.

I can't understand why some presumably young people (who are used to play video games, such as Avatar) claim on IMDb that this is the "very best movie" they ever saw. They must have never seen other classic movies with life actors, sets and costumes (not to mention a decent script).

It's an "ok" film for its technical achievements only - as long as they work on the screen in 3D - and that's really all. James Cameron could do better. He is wasting his talent - if he ever had one.

Brüno (2009)

Correct reflection of (parts) of the Gay Community

[10/10 · 11 July 2009]

First off, I am 50 years old and gay. The statement from various people about this movie, such as from GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios, is simply stupid. Some of the people commenting in this regard themselves have a personal sex live far exceeding what Bruno reflected on screen. If this is not enough, go to any gay pride march (like the one in San Francisco) and just ponder what you've seen there in drag, leather, whips, dildo's, children, dogs and other small animals. Not everyone is the same but I also feel wrongly reflected when I see a circus of gays presenting themselves like "super perverts" what they are - at least some of them. One just has to remember the circus when "Cruising" was released. Some "self elected" gay opinion pollers are just ignorant and do not understand satire. Otherwise, how could they explain the reality of gay life with dark-rooms, bath-houses and the many darker aspects of gay life of which I am happy to not be a part of.

Back to the movie, one has to appreciate satire. A lot of people in the US have scissors in their head and are unable to laugh at "African American" jokes - like my friends in the theatre, They were afraid that they might offend an "African American" sitting two rows behind. The same applies to gays: there are super perverts and business gays. I belong to the latter and are more offended by some Gay Prides. The organization GLAAD is clearly out of touch with reality. Bruno did not offend me or any of my friends in the USA or in Europe.

The Woman in White (1948)

The Woman in White - Why not Releasing it?

[10/10 · 1 July 2008]

I can only hope that Warner will release the 1948 film "The Woman in White" soon - which is based on an epistolary novel written by Wilkie Collins in 1859, serialized in 1859-1860, and first published in book form in 1860. It is considered to be among the first mystery novels and is widely regarded as one of the first (and finest) in the genre of 'sensation novels'.

The 1948 film version from Warner Brothers was one of the last films to be made in the black and white era. Sydney Greenstreet is a fine Baron Fosco with Agnes Moorehead as his wife, a youthful Gig Young and Eleanor Parker (in a double role) round up the excellent cast.

This film should be released considering the importance of the novel as prime example of classic literature - and the film as example of Hollywood at its prime. I have written to Warner Brothers and have received no reply. Does anyone have an email address I could use?

Thanks,

Erich

Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969)

Great Movie Finally Made it To DVD

[10/10 · 19 April 2008]

This movie has to be taken with a grain of salt - one can not compare this 60's movie with todays hot and speedy Action/Adventure films. Some viewers are doing just that with this film. Instead, this movie is full of excellent character actors such as Gert Froebe, Terry-Thomas, Bourvil and Dudley Moore, an interesting storyline and a very catchy soundtrack with a song from Jimmy Durante (which was only briefly available in 1968 on Paramount LP). This movie should be viewed in widescreen only to preserve the vista. I can seriously recommend this film to anyone who wishes to be entertained for a couple of hours by a great cast with an interesting story and a good soundtrack.

The Magdalene Sisters (2002)

Great Film - True Story - Pfui Vatican, Shame on You for Looking Away

[10/10 · 2 April 2007]

I just happened to see this film by accident. I could not turn away (or the TV off) because I was compelled by what I saw about the perverse the Nuns and the Priests and the way they conducted their abusive, perverse and degrading business by humiliating young girls. I was made aware, that the Vatiocan condemned this film upon its release and first showing at the Venice Film Festival.

Typical Vatican: There are no "gay" Priests, all "Nuns" are good by nature, there was never any such atrocity in any such "prison", etc. etc. Shame on you all in Rome for tolerating and participating in this abuse for over 40 years. The last such "prisons" for young girls and/or boys closed in 1996. These sort of Institutions existed all over the world and the Vatican took for over 100 years a perverse pleasure by fostering rape, humiliation, incest, lesbian and gay sex, abortion, murder and mayhem. As a Catholic I am truly ashamed and shocked about this true story. That is the reason why I left the Catholic Church as Institution in Germany (no more paying 10 % of my net wages to Rome to support these type of Perverse Institutions).

The film itself reminded me of "SALO" by Pasolini and I was often reminded of similar scenes - the fact that this was a "true story" made it even more repelling and nauseating.

Night at the Museum (2006)

Great Idea for a Story - Bad Script

[1/10 · 23 December 2006]

I was actually looking very much forward to this film. The idea of being locked in a department store's toy store or at a museum at night has fascinated me from childhood. When I saw the trailer to this new film I was determined to see that film - which unfortunately turned out a waste of money mission.

The movie ticket in San Francisco at the AMC at Van Ness cost $ 11.00 per head (we were three) and the parking for 2 hrs and 45 minutes cost $ 17 (!!!!) in their garage. Popcorn and soft drinks added another $ 18.00 - all in all we spent $ 68.00 for 3 persons for a horrible bad movie. I now understand why people stay at home and watch movies on DVD for $ 3.00

As I was saying, the idea for the movie is great. The script is unchallenging for anyone beyond 5 yrs of age. Most of the adults fell asleep next to us. The script was turned into a silly spoof of a movie, without story, without laughs - in addition that film wasted the talents of every actor involved. Has no one at Fox seen that film prior to its release??? My friends and I discussed this film afterword's and found major faults, loopholes and missing parts to that story. That film has no story at all - it turns a great idea into a pile of waste with sometimes cute pictures. I would not go into details here because I do not wish to spoil it for the rest. Just this: do not waste any money for this because I guarantee that this film will be out on DVD before the Easter Holidays.

Casino Royale (2006)

The Worst Bond of all time

[1/10 · 2 December 2006]

From the timid and most unexciting "starter story" (the worst I have seen in any Bond) to the tedious and unexciting storyline - this was the worst Bond ever filmed. Even the animated main title sequence is the worst of any Bond film. One wishes Maurice Binder back from the grave - he could have done a much, much better job.

The opening scene has been stolen and re-filmed from the movie "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" - the same plot, the same roles filmed in the same locale. Did nobody notice that? The only difference is that the James Bond version was filmed in black and white - how nouveau!

Casino Royale should have been sharper edited. Many times I nearly feel asleep and caught myself looking at the watch during the long, unedited and tedious dialogs scenes between James Bond and his "girls". These conversations were pointless and did not go anywhere. The "villain" was no really a "villain" - in fact he was the dumbest, boring and lamest "villain" in film history. A villain should be portrayed as such to make the audience dislike him - in this Bond film, the audience did not give a dam if the villain lives or dies.

In fact, all the characters of Casino Royale were not sufficiently portrayed for the audience to care for them. For example: the unattractive "blond" help of the bad guy who poisoned James Bond appeared out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere - who cared ? She looked like a lifted, vulgar and out of place Eastern European prostitute - which villain in any Bond movie ever had such poor taste?

Talk about the ending of the movie: one felt reminded on a "cliffhanger". The bad guy was introduced towards the end and no one cared about him anyway - in fact, it was not clear for the majority of the audience if he was the bad guy after all. I think the only person who could follow that thin storyline was the trainee who thought that he wrote a good script.

In general, the movie is a waste of time, energy and resources. I am a huge Bond fan and have all the movies - Casino Royal has been a huge disappointment.

Man of the Year (2006)

Waste of Time and Resources

[1/10 · 13 October 2006]

I saw this movie today and the first thing which came to my mind was "how would I get my money back"? In fact, I should charge the producers for my time.

Robin Williams is (just like he was in RV) reading his lines as if he would be sleepwalking and just doing this film for the money. You can literally see that he is gone off somewhere else while he is on the screen. This film is a ripoff of something which has been done much better before and did not deserve such a bad repeat.

The script is bad, the director has done much better before (Wag the Dog) and Robin Williams should read the scripts before signing for the role. One has the impression, that he did this movie only to pay for his current (expensive) alcohol abuse treatment.

RV (2006)

Disappointing Movie

[1/10 · 30 April 2006]

This movie should have been released on DVD first because its only worth a one day rental. Robin Williams is very bad in this flick - so is the director (who has seen better days). I could have written a much better and clever script. I guess producers think: lets take Sonnenfeld and a dd a bit Robin Williams - and voilà: we have a hit!

The story is predictable so are the actors. One has the feeling to have seen this or that scene in another movie already. For example: National Lampoon's Vacation on the other side was fresh and gaudy for the days it was shot. Everyone remembers that film. I spun off several sequels. Who would think that this poor movie would spin off anything. Let alone Robin Williams, I guess he would rather have his name removed from the credit. He has seen better days.

Well, this movie stinks and I am sorry for every cent and dime I paid to see it.