Somewhere (2010)

final verdict for: "Somewhere" (2010): This movie is probably more dependant on your expectation than any other movie out there.

Let me start off by saying two things: For one, this is one of Sophia Coppola's weaker, if not the weakest movies. That does not mean it is bad per se, the standards for her films are pretty high and having a weak one probably means it's still better than 60% of the other movies out there. It deserves a fair chance. Two, When I first saw the movie in cinema last year, around the same time, it outright bored me to death. the pretentious audience didn't help a tad there.

The story is quickly told, Stephen Dorff is a successful, but basically bored actor, who spends his days in Chateau Marmont in L.A. drinking, watching private strippers and falling asleep in the process, having sex with beautiful women and falling asleep in the process as well, women who go on hating him for what he did or did not do to them. When his daughter, played by Elle Fanning, has to live with him for a while, it first seems like nothing changes for Dorff, but one never knows how big the iceberg is below the surface.

Just by looking at how the movie is made, you quickly realize it's a production technique recycling of "Lost in Translation" (2003), so copying from that can be a good idea, but probably is not. Recycling is good for the environment, not for a movie.

Long shots where seemingly nothing is happening line up here, with little or no dialogue spoken. Oftentimes it feels downright eerie and out of place. Whereas Lost in Translation was plot driven after all and these scenes underlined the feeling of displacement in the unfamiliar environment that Johannson and Murray found themselves in, Somewhere lakes a developed plot. The situation however, is similar here: Even though Dorff is in his familiar environment, due to the lifestyle he leads, he more and more detaches from society and ultimately, life. So there is no problem with including these shots here, but Coppola took it over the top. Half as many or half as long would have been more than enough.

Surely, the acting is really good and Fenning wasn't even the big surprise. No, that was Dorff who I imagined to be unable to play a role like that before. The feelings these two express, feel so real that they grow close to you really quickly. The supportive cast, with the exception of Chris Pontius, who does a great job being himself, is basically without memorable character, but that is unnecessary for the movie anyway.

Not expecting any less, Sofia Coppola proved to have a good taste with her choice of music director here. Phoenix (the band), did a great job in providing music for the movie. Never does it feel out of place and always it perfectly underlines the scenes.

As for the camera and editing done, there is not much to complain about. The colour filters used are very good, they bring across the deceiving California sunshine atmosphere, which this movie is drawing from. As for the editing, it is mostly okay, but sometimes it feels unnatural, almost pretentiously artsy. For example the over-use of cut-to-black-cut-to-scene shots, where you are left with a second of black to consider, was present way too often in the movie to feel natural.

But these are details, what is it that makes this movie so ambiguous? Why is it that some people loved it, like the jury of the Venice film festival, who awarded the movie with the Golden Lion, and other people find it unwatchable?

Here’s what I found troubling when first seeing it: The movie doesn’t really seem to get going until the last 10 minutes, and it is 98 minutes long. It leaves you with a very ambiguous open end that will make you either love or hate Dorff, depending on what you think will happen after the last cut. The over-use of long, boring shots without dialogue. The lack of a clear plot line.

That should be enough, but believe me, there’s more. The thing is, however, that this movie is quite hard to understand, just as Lost in Translation might be hard to understand for someone who has never lived in a foreign culture and/or has trouble imagining it. Understanding Somewhere is even harder, because the culture that Dorff detaches himself from is basically our own. We see what he does and we feel familiar, because we know all this and still we think “What the hell is he doing?” Unfortunately his culture is not ours, even though we think it is. He has achieved what lots of people want to achieve, but little manage to do. He made the American Dream come true for himself, but it has turned into a Californian Nightmare. He goes to parties and award ceremonies with and of people he doesn’t know but who admire him, not as a person, but as a concept. They don’t care about the person Stephen Dorff, they want to have sex with the superstar Stephen Dorff.

The long exhibition of the movie, that seemingly shows no development on Dorff’s side serves the purpose of establishing that position he is in and painting a complex portrayal of the person, and nothing else. In order for us to understand what happens in the end and why, we need a complex introduction to the person, although Coppola admittedly overdid it.

Anyone who has read Bret Easton Ellis knows what is happening with Dorff here, that he is a very disillusioned and thus very bored upperclassman, who has nothing better to do than to spend his days like he does. Thus this portrayal of Dorff also becomes a critique of the lifestyle of the top 1%, especially in California, but a pitying critique. Dorff is not greedy or vile, he is a person that is meant to make us reconsider ourselves, just as he does in the end. Money and fame has brought him nowhere. When it comes to the end of the day, the only one who has been able to make him happy, was his daughter and that is where the message of this movie lies. It is very hidden and it takes a lot of background knowledge about the topic, especially in the California landscape, but that it is. 
Furthermore, it does not matter what happens next, the open end is no open end. His realization is a clear one, a turn to his daughter, he has undergone a catharsis (that is, by the way, also apparent in him wearing a clean and clear white shirt in the last shot), he leaves behind his Ferrari and for the first time ever, walks on his own. The slight smile on his lips is not the fake and trained smile that he used a million times before, it is a true smile, a smile of realization over the things that really matter in his life.

Bearing all this in mind and considering it, once realizes that the movie goes beyond endless boring shots, lack of plot and dialogue. The message here, matters more than the mode of deliverance, although it is a very carefully chosen one. And sometimes decisions seem to be wrong, until you understand the background to them and especially film is and should be a platform where to experiment with these things, without having to justify oneself for it.

Nonetheless, the movie has its flaws. Without discussing it, or doing some kind of research or having background knowledge, it is hard to really appreciate it and if that is not given, then at best it is an ambient movie that you can put in the player at a party to just accompany the mood of the party with it’s really bright and colourful imagery and well composed soundtrack.

Clearly it is not appealing to the audience it was intended for, with its over the top artsyness that sometimes even feels posh and like it wants to tell you “I am art, and you better appreciate me for that even though you don’t get me, or you will be exposed as a moron.”

Sometimes changing the recipe to fit the need, simply does not do the job. Had Sofia Coppola chosen another way to treat the topic than to go the Lost in Translation approach, this could have been far better.

From a point of view, where the necessary tools and knowledge to get Coppola here are there and given, I would give the movie 8 out of 10. However, she fails to deliver her message in a way that makes it accessible to all audiences and instead bores the average audience with long and, for the audience, pointless sequences, so I will go with a 6 out of 10. 
It’s a great movie, if you know what you’re dealing with, but it definitely not if that is not given.

The intention to create great art does seldom lead to the actual creation of it.

Bedtime Stories (2008)

final verdict for: "Bedtime Stories" (2008): Oh hello there Disney! Family Comedy? Sure, bring it on!

In this flick we find Adam Sandler in one of his typical roles. The little dumbie who deserves better (here by his father's last will), but is denied his luck by the guy who bought his father's hotel. When his sister, an elementary school principal has to go on a trip to get a new job after her school is planned for being closed, he gets to keep their children and through the bedtime stories he makes up with the kids and that gradually come true, little by little he is getting closer to reaching his aim, to become the hotel's manager as his father wished for him.
 
The plot itself is nothing special, it's basically a reiteration of countless Adam Sandler movies before. However, this movie reaches a perfection in this subgenre (if you may call it so) that is nowhere to be found in other Sandler comedies. The story is very well developed and truly holds something for the whole family. The small bedtime stories, alongside the (admittedly weird) guinea pig, are great for children and the struggle of Sandler and the love story that goes along with it are appealing for their parents.
 
The actors' perfomances are as good as they can get, given the type of movie we are confronted with. Nothing outstanding, but solid enough. And thanks god, Courtney Cox didn't have enough screen time to ruin this movie, as she usually does with everything she is involved with.
 
Camera, editing and music are good too. As with the performance, there are no surprises, but it does the job very well.
 
The only real downside of this one is the deus ex machina ending, that seemingly comes out of nowhere, to to ensure an otherwise impossible happy ending.
 
The use of frame narration is another thing that was put into really good use here.
 
Over-all, I was more than happy with this one. Light entertainment that deserves not too much of thinking, but more leaning back and enjoying the well thought through story to the very end.
 
A good 7 out of 10, as far as I am concerned!

Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005)

final verdict for: "Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God" (2005): a fantasy tale that would be a good representation for what the Pen&Paper game stands for, if it hadn't been for the budget.

Set roughly 100 years after the original "Dungeons and Dragons" (2000), one of the arch enemies returns as an undead striving to live a human life again and seeking revenge by reviving an ancient undead dragon. Only a group of adventurers has it in their hands to go and find a magical item that would be able to prevent certain doom to the realm.

After the abomination that was the original D&D, expectations were quite down, fans of the genre and strangers to it alike found it to be one of the worst fantasy movies ever made and being familiar with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, you can only shake your head over that piece of crap. The second installment however, got the biggest issue of the first one right: a believable fantasy script (believable from a fantasy point of view). The storyline is very linear and follows the typical game scheme and watching the movie you could almost feel the underlying campaign setting.

Another huge pro are the characters and actors that play them. All of them are believable fantasy stereotypes, but instead of going for something unbelievable new, they went with the stereotypes and delivered the typical fantasy characters without any unnecessary extras, which si perfectly fitting for the setting.

The music is really good as well, especially considering the low budget, this movie had to struggle with. Typical fantasy epic orchestra tunes mingle with folkloristic town music, as you aould expect it and are used to from games like "Baldur's Gate".

This movies biggest problem truly was the budget. The script was really good, the cast actors as well and the music is splendid too. But looking at the cinematography and the special effects, the low budget really shows. It really is a shame. Had this movie had the budget of the first one, it could have been a movie that would truly have been a good representation of the game, that fans could have been proud of.

Alas, that was not the case and so this movies suffers from several issues. First of all, it is still set in the same city as the first movie, but to cut CGI costs, the city now looks like an average medieval city and not the magical megalopolis of the first one, which is actually more fitting in my opinion. However, there are several other inconsistency problems like this one and especially towards the end, the movie feels very rushed. Characters, that were developed in detail before are'nt seen until the very end, arms that were cut off reappear and over all one feels they were running out of money and had to quickly finish their work. To truly make all ends meet, the movie would have needed at least 20 more minutes.

Despite all these problems, it was still a very enjoyable movie and true to the source material, which is a huge biggie in the genre. To me this is an injustly underrated movie and I award it 7 out of 10 RP (Rating Points).

Alaska (1996)

final verdict for: "Alaska" (1996): Admittedly a guilty pleasure, but one that does not stand the test of time, unfortunately.

After losing their mother a small family moves to Alaska, because their father wants to start a new life as a commercial delivery aviator there. When he gets lost in a storm and seemingly can not be found, his 2 children set out to find their lost father. Befriending a bear, they do not only find their father, but also their way to surviving in the frontier conditions and ultimately, their maturity.

I have known this movie for a long time and remember loving it when watching it as a kid. When I started a research project about Alaska two years ago, I decided to use this film and gave it a rewatch and was disappointed. Two years have passed and as I am wrapping up the paper, I gave it another try, but it was no good.

There are two good things about this movie. A: The landscape and B: Charlton Heston, basically playing the gun loving guy he probably really was. Those two were also the only believable things in the movie.

Thora Birch, Vincent Kartheiser and Dirk Benedict give it their best, but they stay uncredible. Especially Birch and Kartheiser oftentimes act in a way that only children will buy and you often sense that they are only acting after given directions.

The plot itself is nicely thought, a modern spirit journey if you will, but the premis is so ridiculous, Jack London would be ashamed of it. These two survive so many situations that would be lethal for even the most skilled and gifted survival adventurer that it makes you shake your head, especially considering that the movie wants us to believe these two kids come from the city and have basically no frontier experience.

The music in this movie is okay, they made it to fit the agasping athmosphere, with the beautiful landscapes, but it is over the top. There is only so and so many orchestral scores with choir, you can stand before it gets boring.

The camera work istelf is well done most of the times, except for minor moments where the camera crew is visible in shadow or the zoom lens chosen in a wrong moment. However this good work gets killed by the editing most of the time, which edits shots together that anyone can spot out as not belonging together, be it, because of obvious changes in the background of because of clothing errors in between shots.

It's really sad, seeing, how this movie could have been so much more, but used so little of his potential. The references to native alaskan culture and how they are linked to the lives of these Chicago kids was a really clever idea and the movie even managed to deliver a certain environmental message. Unfortunately though, these good intents are overshadowed by the poor execution, but hey, that's what you get for letting your son direct the movie, Charlton!

A freezing 4 out of 10 for this sad example of "could have been real good!"

Atonement (2007)

final verdict for: "Atonement" (2007): Another example for a good movie that is almost ruined by a WTF-ending.

Set in pre- and war-UK the story of what could, what would and what should have been is told, when a girl dooms the relationship of a loving couple through things she does not yet understand.

I am not a big fan of Keira Knightley, but admittedly, her performance is rock-solid. So is the performance of the rest of the cast. The roles were close to perfectly cast, wtih only minor characters whose character were more represented through their look and appearance than through their actions and dialogue.

However good the music, cinematography and directing are, there are certain bothering elements. A brilliant movie will use stylistic devices, such as POV in a way that the audience does not recognize them. A bad movie does not use stylistic devices. And this movie uses them so blatantly obvious that they loose all meaning, because they are so obvious you don't need to use your brain. There'S the POV-shots that establish the fact between real incidents and incidents as they are interpreted by the girl. There is lighting and style in the design of the pre-war scenery mansion that is more reminiscent of the Narnia movies than the 1930's and there's the obnoxious long shot that is very well executed, but so blatantly obvious in its meaning you'd wish it wasn't there.

Another example from the same corner is the music. It is brilliant and when you first realize the clicking of the type-writer is incorporated into the music, you are very satisfied, as it is a very clever move. However, after hearing it around 15 times it becomes a hit in the face with the hint-hammer.

The whole composition feels forced, almost like a final exam entry from a film student with a multi-million dollar budget. Joe Wright obviously knew how to do these stylistic devices, but not how to incorporate them with subtlety. The over-the-top artsyness kills a lot of the sympathy one develops for the characters and their story, since the plot really is brilliant.

Lastly the ending. it is another hammer-to-the-face moment. Out of nowhere it hits you and confronts you with something nobody would see coming, but it is not a clever move, but another sloppish use of a stylistic device, the "unexpected twist". Usually the twist is at least somewhat hinted at as not to leave the audience with a "WTF" on their lips. Atonement doesn't and thus has said expression written all over its ending. Not that it does not make sense, it does, but why couldn't you at least build a tiny little frame for the audience to drop back to?

All in all the movie is one to be loved and hated at the same time. The story and characters are well written, the scenes and production design looks accurate and leaves the impression of 40's and 50's war movies, which has become rare these days. The music itself is brilliant too, but the whole composition feels forced in and out.

Thus, I give this film a 6 out of 10. Big potential, but a lot of it lost through wanting and trying more than competence necessitated.

Cloverfield (2008)

final verdict for: "Cloverfield" (2008): J.J. Abrams should be in prison for this thing.

A movie that does a lot of things right, but does just as many if not more, wrong. The story is as old as filmmaking itself. A giant monster attacks New York. We've all seen it a thousand times before. However this movie lacks unlikely hero-figures that have the brilliant idea, that blows the monster to pieces. It has pointless heroicism however.

Let's begin with the actors. The choice was really good and the main cast plays their role absolutely convincingly and comprehensable, so there must have gone a good deal of the planning time into character development. The side characters play little to no role in the movie itself, but had a huge role in the viral marketing campaign that went along with the movie (though, it's getting OLD Mr Abrams!), but we'll come to that later.

The camera. Shaky cam. If you read these reviews regularly, you probably know I am not a big fan of the shakey cam. I have to say though, that the use of the camera itself is pretty good! However, the cuts are ridiculous, nobody who knows anything about camera hardware will buy the cuts with a tape recorder to be like this. Also, the filter of the camera is just too good, so that's unrealistic as well. A flashlight of that power on a handycam? Nah! Same goes for nightvision of that quality. Go fool someone else.
The pace of the movie, on the other hand, is really good and you watch the horror unfold in awe without a single moment to really catch your breath.

Thankfully there is no music, so at least that stays realistic.

Behold, here come my issues with the movie. It is set in New York. Okay that has been done before, but Abrams uses a stylistic device that filled me with shame for him. In the very first scenes when the monster attacks New York and buildings crumble, Abrams shamelessly recycled arrangements from 9/11 footage. Settings, angles, progressions, it was all a copy of those events and it would be okay if the use of the lessons lerned in those days (in terms of how crumbling buildings would look realistically) had been more subtle, I would have been okay with it, but the that pictures from 9/11 are shamelessly replicated here, just fills me with disgust.

The next thing is the anti-japanese sentiment. You don't find that by watching the movie, but if you follow the viral marketing campaign that was started around the movie to provide background information, you find it. First it seems to be a friendly nod to the "Godzilla" movies, but the more you read the worse it gets, as it views the japanese as a brutal profitseeking people that will go any way to make profit and are ultimately responsible for the attack on New York as they accidentally awaken the monster, searching for substances on the sea-floor and then watch the catastrophe unfold without helping.

The viral marketing campaign itself however is really clever and sucks you deeper and depper into the cloverfield mystery that is even today, 3.5 years after the movie not completely solved and leaves space for sequels.

The end of the movie was also very bold, I will not spoil it for you, but you will be surprised no matter what.

As I said in the beginning, the movie is neither good nor bad, as it confronts the audience with a lot of bold decisions in terms of plot and storytelling. However, the shameless exploitation of traumatic pictures that are reminiscent of real life events and negative sentiments that date back to the 1940's leave you with a very bad taste in your mouth.

Final verdict? Guilty on all accounts. The movie is sentenced to a score of 4 out of 10.

The court is hereby dismissed!

Solomon Kane (2009)

final verdict for: "Solomon Kane" (2009): to quote John François Kowalsky: "It's not a good movie, but it's entertaining."

Solomon Kane is a high ranked warrior of the English Crown, but when the devil wants his soul, he turns to the path of god. However, Satan will not give up so easily and tries to hunt him down, so Solomon has to face his destiny. This is pretty much how the movie works.

Unfortunately the movie is full of plotholes, anconsistencies and things that simply make no sense. On the one hand the script seems to be full of errors, but it's not because the writing is bad, the overall storyline is indeed quite good, but it seems the writer of the script was really sloppy in his work. So was Michael J. Basset in directing. He paid so much of attention to all kinds of things, that he left room for a lot of bullshit going on.

The cinematography is really good. The dark theme of the movie is very well represented in the movie and the costumes look really classy. It all feels right. So does the music, which is full of really epic scores. The actors are performing absolutely great, given their roles and room in the movie.

Watching this was quite enjoyable, if you are in for a movie that basically follows a similar plot superstructure to "Conan the Barbarian" (1982) and do not expect too much. All the problems with the writing and directing, however turn this movie into something that just does not deserve a high rating.

The production team should have done their planning better, thus it is a 5 out of 10.

Everything Is Illuminated (2005)

final verdict for: "Everything Is Illuminated" (2005): This movie is not only one about a young man's journey to the past, it is a journey by itself.

Elijah Wood plays a young jewish man, sets out to a journey to Ukraine to find the traces of his families past, when a photo of his grandmother is presented to him by his grandmother on her deathbed. But what the compulsive collector is about to find will not only change his life, but also that of the Ukrainian heritage tourguide.

There are few things to criticize about this movie, which is why I will start with the flaws. First of all, Elijah Wood does a really good job acting his role. However he seems to be too stiff even for the role he is playing. He is giving his best and he is convincing, I am not saying he is not, but it just does not feel right. Elijah Wood has probably been playing the same roles too often to broaden his horizon for a role like this, even if he has the trade's skills.

The second point is the depiction of Ukraine in the film. I have to admit, I have not been to Ukraine in my life and I may not be qualified to make complaints, but the way the country is depicted makes it seem like it got stuck in soviet 1970's and even though the independance took place the people stayed the same and the symbols of the Soviet regime started rotting away. Everything seems to be reminiscent of the bygone "glory" of the era and left to decay. As I said, I do not quailfy to make a statement here, but I would think the Ukraine of 2004 to have looked a bit different than that. Correct me if I am wrong.

That's it. That is what I have to complain about. The actors are brilliant, the music is likewise, as well as the cinematography (including used color filters - and that is rare!), the pace of narration, it just all falls into place and left an impression on me that only "The Pianist" (1999) was able to leave so far.

There are so many layers to explore in this movie that as soon as it'S over you want to watch it again and it saddens me greatly that there are so many things, that I know are there, but that I can not understand. I will not be able to understand the nuances in the dialogue as I don't speak the language and subtitles are always shallow signifiers and I will also never understand the underlying jewish mythology in this piece of art.

I cannot say in how far the film differs from the book (as I have yet to read it), but since Jonathan Safran Foer has a cameo, he must have agreed with the movie.

If you want to watch a beautiful movie with great music, well developed characters, a multilayer cake of a story and that can both make you laugh and deeply move you, then clearly you should watch "Everything Is Illuminated".

An 8 out of 10.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

final verdict for: "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (1961): To be honest I do not get what makes this movie a classic.

The story is ridiculous and horribly written, even for 60's standards, the characters are shallow, the music (except for maybe the main theme, which they rape over and over again) is forgettable and the cinematography is nothing special either.

Sure, Hepburn and Peppard are acting okay, but even that is nothing special. There's gender and social role stereotypes all over the place and on top of that it's mildly racist towards the Japanese (which in 1961 was in my opinion not the road to forgiving each other).

The only thing that really saves this movie from being a complete disaster for me is the cat, he is super-cute and cool! Seldomly have I seen an animal in a movie that well trained. If they hadn't saved the poor thing in the rain in the end, I would have thrown this DVD out of the window.
Sad to say that a trained animal side character is what makes this movie memorable, but that's how it is.

So, not a classic for me. Unless you argue the cat makes it classic. Then and only for that reason, I will agree.

Other than the cat, long, boring, shallow, forgettable: A 3 out of 10. At best.

Eight Men Out (1988)

final verdict for: "Eight Men Out" (1988): A sports-film. Finally.

Big thanks to Volkan, who gave me this movie, I'm glad, I finally had the time to watch it.

As a resident by choice of Iowa, you have to know "Field of Dreams" (1989) and connected to it, eternally, Shoeless Joe Jackson. I will not make this a history lesson of baseball, but it shall be said, that he may or may not have been part in the 1919 world series controversy and that is what this film is about.

I imagine it to be very hard to enjoy this film if you are not familiar with baseball and/or the world series controversy. If you are, however, this movie is for you and you are able to dive right into the time and games, the cinematography provides very well for that, the music is fitting for the time and the actors (most and foremost Charlie Sheen and John Cussack) are giving this their best.

However, if you don't know much about baseball or the controversy, following this movie will be very hard, as the focus is different from that of baseball-flicks like "Major League" (1989), which can be enjoyed without the knowledge of baseball.

Giving a proper rating here is really hard. If you fall into category one, then this will be an 8 out of 10 as you are right in the action, but if you are category two, then it will be a 5 out of 10 at best.
I enjoyed the movie very much, but I am a baseball-wannabe-enthusiast and taking the limits of the movie into consideration, I will go with a very good 6 out of 10.

Play ball!

Before Sunset (2004)

final verdict for: "Before Sunset" (2004): What usually happens with sequels is that they ruin the original. Everyone knows this. "Jaws" was great, but "Jaws II"? Meh. But "Before Sunset" is one of the very few examples where a relatively week original is heightened to brilliance by its sequel.

Nine Years after their night in Vienna, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpie meet again in Paris, where Hawke runs promotion for his book in which he describes that one magical night. They decide to spend the afternoon together before he has to catch his flight back home to New York, to his wife and son.

The cinematography is just about as brilliant as in the original, even a tad better, as the cut and camera-work pick up elements from the original and incorporate and vary it here. The end-cut through the sets of the night from the first one is the stage opener in the sequel, just with Paris being the stage. The flashbacks we see are so nicely incorporated that it almost feels as if the first movie was not what actually happened, but what he describes in his novel. An idea that I like very much as it would explain what I identified as flaws to be plot elements of novel-storytelling (but I guess that's my wishful thinking).

The music is mostly good, but has brilliant moments, like the songs written and sung by Julie Delpie that directly relate to the story of the film and actually even seem to be part of the film. It's like being a ghost that follows them, it knows her songs and knows where to put them in the right spot, even though Hawke doesn't know about them yet.

The story itself really surprised me, because Linklater was able to accomplish here, what he failed in doing in the original movie and he does it so brilliantly that it makes you think, it was done on purpose and part of the story in the original. Hawke and Delpie have grown up and out of the stereotypes they were. This leads to the viewer realising, what was so stereotypical about the two in the original might not have been bad writing, but simply the flaw of being young. Their characters could not have been fully developed and they still had dreams and ideals that they deem stupid now. It all falls into place perfectly.

Oh and the ending, I won't give anything away, but say this much: It's relatively open, but perfect!

I will give this movie a 9 out of 10, because it was a real surprise and it was really well written a prime example of how a production can do a great movie.

I also will give a rating to the two movies in combination now, which is a first and will probably stay a rare exception. I will not withdraw my rating for the first one, because if you watch it independently, which you had to for 9 years until the make-up came out, it really does not make sense. However if you watch both movies right after each other, you will get a really great experience that will stay with you for a long time, as you will be able to communicate with what the characters are going through.

My final verdict for "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" combined is: 8 out of 10.

Very special procedure for a very special two-parter.

Before Sunrise (1995)

final verdict for: "Before Sunrise" (1995): I picked this up a long time ago, started to watch it, put it back to the box and ignored it for over 5 years. Now I put myself through it.

Ethan Hawke meets Julie Delpy in a train to Vienna and convinces her to spend the night before he leaves to the US together with him in Vienna. Of course it's a love story.

Let's talk about the good things first. The cinematography is really good, perspective and shot arrangement are really well chosen, especially the montage towards the end that recaptures the places of their journey through the night in morning light is really great.

The music is okay, as cheesy as generic as you would expect, but not getting on your nerves, though forgettable.

The characters, however, should have been the movie's greatest element, but it fails horribly at it. In the beginning of the movie the two tell each other that they don't want to be the stereotypical french and american people and all through the movie they try to prove it. But the only thing they do prove in the end is the confirmation. Ethan Hawke is the typical mysterious American youngster on a sould journey through old europe. That topic is about as old as US-american storytelling itself, just ask Henry James about it. Julie Delpie is depicted as exactly what too many people think about french women: easily impressed, mildly esoterical/alternative and rather sophisticated. Also they are very stereotypical in their attitudes. Ethan Hawke is the negative guy, who will whine just about everything. Julie Delpy is so positive, it makes you suffocate and yet so easily influenced that she doesn't seem to have an opinion of her own.

What this leads to is all their talk, and the movie mainly consists of talk, being surface phrasing and pseudo-intellectual/spiritual bullshitting about life and it's purpose and so on. Yabber Yabber. I would have been able to stand this for half an hour, especially since Hawke and Delpy are performing really well and close to real life. But not for 105 minutes.

There is no character development whatsoever, not that I expected this, given the fact that all of this is happening in one night, but with characters so boring and flat it gets unbearable.

In the end, all that's left is a nice portfolio of shots of Vienna in the mid 90's and a hell of a lot boring discussions.

However, if there's one thing the movie makes me curious about is, whether the sequel ("Before Sunset" 2004) is better and where it leads the characters, 9 years after their first encounter.

I am really wondering, where the IMDB-rating of 8.1 comes from, but I am not willing to give this more than 4 out of 10.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

final verdict for: "Planet of the Apes" (2001): This is the perfect example for not only how the attempt to revive a franchise can horribly fail, but also how it can completely ruin it. Anyone who has ever seen the 1968 original will feel incredibly insulted by this piece of crap. 

It starts off fine, but the moment Mark Wahlberg crashlands on the planet it's going down the drain. The movie is all over the place but stays nowhere. The characters are sterotypical and undergo no development whatsoever. The arrangements of shots oftentimes doesn't make sense at all. For example when they are fleeing the city they are running through all these bedrooms of completely unrelated people, implying that all bedrooms of the freaking city are connected. Wait, what?? Why?? Also there are so many things that don't make sense. So the humans crashlanded on the planet and the apes they brought along then got intelligent (somehow) and took over. Okay. But how the hell did the horses get there? Did they have horses on the space station? Why?? Was there a riding range somewhere on the ship? Or did they have spacesuits for the horses to ride them in space?? 

The music was as nice as it could get, Danny Elfman did okay here, heard better from him though. The cinematography was average as well, at least no shakey cam (which it certainly would have had if it had been made in 2011). The actor's performance was slumpy at best, especially Mark Wahlberg seemed only to have one face expresseion whatsoever. 

The ending saves this movie from being a complete failure and the message is, although expected, a good one. Gives the name Ape Lincoln a whole new dimension.

So to sum it up: What the hell was Tim Burton thinking? Was he like on rehab when he made this? Here you go: 1968 version > 2001 remake.
 

This deserves nothing more than 3 out of 10. one for the good special effects, one for the okay beginning and end of the movie, half a point each for the music and the female sidekick. And the latter being allocated to be considered for the movie says a lot about the quality of the movie in general.
 

Watch the original and avoid this piece of crap.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

final verdict for: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008): Uff.. That was tough. I needed two sessions to get through this movie. Not because it was bad, it wasn't. It simply was too intense to go through it in one sitting. 

I knew the short story by Fitzgerald and was very curious about what Fincher would do to it. And it turns out, he did what seems to be close to impossible for most other directors. Not only did he turn a work of literature into a worthy movie, but also managed to shift the historical background, without ruining the original story (Kurosawa was very good at that too and in my opinion one of very few). 

Two frame stories narrate this movie and both of then are set into being brilliantly. The camera work is just beautiful, so is the music. Always setting or fitting the mood, Blues blends into ambient orchestra music and really helps conveying the picture of New Orleans in the first half of the 20th century and beyond. The filters used give it a look that always seems to be fitting the era we are in and the spirit of the time carries over very well. 

The choice in actor's is splendid and all of them perform absolutely convincingly. Pitt and Blanchett are marvellous here and even though Pitt seems to be a little uninterested at times it still seems to fit the character. Only bummer here is the relatively poor use of CGI on the young/old Pitt, as you clearly see it's computer generated and that too a point, where it becomes a nuisance. Fortunately enough though it is not needed for a too long time.

Never before have I seen a movie dealing with life in such a way. It is so cheerful and happy about life and yet at the same time reminding the viewer of mortality, a perfect equilibrium between "Carpe Diem" and "Memento Mori" establishes that leaves you absolutely breathless and left me with tears in my eye as the movie neared its end.
 

If you have enough energy to sit through this long movie (166min), you will definitely be rewarded, but make sure to bring a box of tissues.
 

With only few points to critcize, I will go with the well earned rating, the IMDB gives for this one: With 8 out of 10.

The Gypsy Warriors (1978)

final verdict for: "The Gypsy Warriors" (1978): Anyone got a spare DeLorean? Cause I want to go back in time and stop myself from buying this film for 50c. 

It is one of those movies where the cover looks better than the whole of the film, although it has little to do with it. Tom Selleck as special task force member against the Nazis. The formula is easy enough, eh? Magnum in the 40's, what's so difficult? Instead we get around 8 minutes introduction with a horrible narrator (who comes back in the end! UARGH!!!) and 4 sketch drawings of Nazis in Uniform... For 8 minutes... 

Then we get the backstory for another 8 minutes. Completely irrelevant as well. Then we get the opening credits (depending on your version of this piece of shit). A catchy tune and a M*A*S*H/Hogan's Heroes style intro. And here the thing becomes clear. This never was supposed to be a movie. It was supposed to be a TV Series and this was the sorry excuse for a Pilot! 

My god was this thing bad. Horrible acting on all sides, horrible music, lowest quality camera and editing work (even by the low late 70's standards) and an uninspiring story. Seriously, I could go on and on about this movie, but I would gain nothing from it, and neither would you. I wasted 77 minutes, watching this garbage and I advise you not to. 

1 out of 10 and even that one only for having accent-free German-speaking Nazis. 

 SERIOUSLY? HOW COULD AANNYYOONNEE FUCK THAT UP? It's Magnum killing Nazis! I could have done better than that! Give him a railgun and let him shoot Nazis for 77 minutes nonstop: There! Better movie than "Gypsie Warriors"! Actually I will deduct 0.999 from the final score. Having a few german expats in there is not worth a whole point. Final verdict: 0.001 out of 10.

Up in the Air (2009)

final verdict for: "Up in the Air“ (2009): First of all my BIG THANKS go to Sven Vorbeck for the generous gift that is this DVD, sorry I haven’t reviewed it earlier. 

Some of you may remember less my favourable final verdict for “Thank You for Smoking” (2005), actually I think it was my second or third. This movie shares the same superstructure, but does a lot better at it. Different from TYfS there is no unnecessary female sidekick here. The sidekicks in this movie matter a lot and contribute greatly to the overall story arc. Without them... the whole thing would not work. That is a great plus. 

Musicwise, Jason Reitman has greatly learned from “Juno” (2007) and has implemented this here. In fact I would go as far as to say that this movie takes all the rights from Juno and TYfS, leaves out the wrongs and mingles them very well together. I’ll admit, the movie is a little lengthy at times, but it’s manageable and you will be rewarded for every lengthy passage with one vibrating with life and emotion. However Reitman has a bit of a problem with simply incorporating too many details. Certain things are introduced and only briefly picked up later to make ends meet and that feels forced at times (the 10 million miles, or giving some of them away). 

The sporadically use of the shaky cam is another downside of the movie; it would have worked just as well with regular means of filming. Why attempt documentary style in a movie that does not try to be documentary at any point? My last piece of concern is the ending (happens quite often lately), which leaves the viewer completely puzzled about what changes have taken place and in how far Clooney’s character has changed and what his future implications are. 

Overall a very enjoyable film and well worth your time, although with a couple of dents and cracks here and there. A solid 7 out of 10!

Berserker (2004)

final verdict for: "Berserker" (2004): The German title for this one was: "Thor - God's Berserk" (roughly translated), which got me curious. Wasn't Thor a god himself? I got the movie and watched it and sadly it has nothing to do with Thor. There's one character whose name (according to the credits) was Thorsen, namely the king whose role wasn't very big.  

This movie was interesting for one part in particular that most A and B-movies in the genre get wrong, but doesn't make it a whole lot better. As with so many others there is a part in our time and a part in the distant past. Usually the part in the distant past looks really shitty and ill-researched, whereas the present part looks somewhat okay. This movie twists the whole thing around. 

First you see 25 minutes of viking action that, although the post-production effects look like I did them in Vegas Pro, was real fun! The characters seemed to be flat but fitting and the cinematography and music were okay too (especially the music). Then it hits you like a lightning (or the hammer of Thor, hrhr), when the setting changes to the present and the whole thing looks like it'll erupt into porn any moment (actually it almost does at one point). Here the dialogue is shitty and the characters aren't fitting anymore and the audience is left guessing what the hell is going on, although that sort of works and is explained in bits and pieces throughout. 

The end-fight and revelations there are satisfying and give you one or another surprise, but the ultimate ending is so horrible I can't even put it in words. It's almost as if the people involved wanted to rob it off its last piece of credibility. The movie had you side with the villain the whole time, because the hero is so dorkily naive anyway, but that ending makes you wish the hero got his head chopped off instead of the villain.
 

Summing up here is not easy. It was a pretty bad movie, but the idea behind the story was interesting and also different from the usual Highlander approach. You can clearly feel and see this is a B-movie production with a rather low budget, but they showed a lot of dignity in production and tried to make the best out of what they had, which still isn't much, don't get me wrong. I

would give the viking segment of this movie 7 out of 10, because it really sucked me in even though the characters were flat and the effects far beyond shitty. The present part however is worth 2 stars at best (3 if you give one for the boobs), because there nothing was right, except for the music and the performance of the villain who somehow managed to stay as he should have. I will give this one 4,5 out of 10, because it was really okay for a Swedish fantasy B-movie. 

Oh, did I mention it'S from Sweden? It's from Sweden!  

Actually it's from South Africa and the UK and from 2001. Other Sources say it's a US-swedish coproduction from 2007. Make your choice. I liked the idea of it being from Sweden.

A Cinderella Story (2004)

final verdict for: "A Cinderella Story" (2004): One of the better ones in the genre. 

You all know the story, but the shoe is a mobile phone here. While the main cast (Hilary Duff & Chad Michael Murray) acts rather convincing and with a lot of dignity, the performance of the evil stepmother and her retarded daughters (among which is Madeline Zima) act so over the top it really reduces the over-all performance.

The characters are opacque and stereotypical of course, but rather good in doing their job. The camera work is okay, sometimes a little bit too close, especially in moving shots. A nice thing are the filters used. They have a very warm and ...late 90's, early 2000's feel (which I love) that fits the southern California setting. 
The music is okay too. Forgettable, but fitting. Stilol one of those movies that gets ruined by the end. The majority of problems does not get solved on-screen, but in narration withing the last minutes of the movie, as if they had to rush things to get the movie over with. Would have been nice to see an implementation instead.
 
Overall this was rather okay and fun to watch. At least it was way better than the 2008 remake with Selena Gomez, but we'll come to that at some point. It was fun to watch, but stereotypical and the story is old. Certainly not a game changer though. 

I think this thing deserves a good 6 out of 10.

Unknown (2011)

final verdict for: "Unknown" (2011): This movie really got me trapped in a corner. 

The idea wasn't really bad. It wasn't all new, but the combination was innovative. The storytelling itself however wasn't all that good. Although you buy Liam Neeson's and Bruno Ganz's performance a lot of the other cast member's acting (especially the German actors) was really sloppy.

You see Neeson struggling to regain his memories and can tell by the way he is acting and how he gradually transforms with every bit and piece of information he recovers and the other actor's just stay shallow at best. What's more the movie... has so many inconsistencies and plotholes that it get's really painful to follow, not to mention that the use of Berlin as location is an insult to anyone who knows the city a bit, even as a tourist. 

The constant recurrence of plot elements and storytelling superstructures, like car chases and repeated trashing of taxis is just plain horrible to watch. The score is forgetful, not a single memorable tune. The camera is average, nothing special, a lot of camera trims and bends. The editing uses a lot of rough cuts, distuingishing scenes is very hard. 

Also the image of Berlin this movie conrfonts us with is really saying nothing. It's the mere scene for the movie, nothing more, which also explains the sloppy incorporation of the city's geography. It could be just about any place in the world, even though the use of Hotel Adlon and other landmarks wants us to think different. 

One more or less positive thing, however is the incorporation of unreliable narration which presents us with a couple of surprises and even a big one in the end, although even "Stage Fright" (1950) as one of the pioneers in that field did a lot better.

So, what do we have, let's sum up. An okay story, with a convincing leading act, but sloppy and forgetful side characters, an unimportant score, overuse of schematas and a cardboard-use of Berlin. Even though it was quite okay while it lasted, there's not much that withstands even the sketchiest examination. 

An okay 5 out of 10.

True Grit (2010)

final verdict for: "True Grit" (2010): What can I say? I wanted to see this movie ever since I saw the trailer prior to "Somewhere" and I found it better then the main feature I was about to see. I wasn't turned down. 

What we get is a story of revenge, but where the hard men are not the ones seeking revenge initially but a 14-year old instead. A very nice twist to the wild-west genre in itself. The story's pace is well balanced the humour is excellent, but not overdrawn and surprisingly does not cling to quoting other movies of the genre. The music is supposed to trigger the wild-west movie feel and it does. 

Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon play their roles very well and in a matter that let's the thoughtful viewer forgive them to be archetypes of the genre (which is, however a joke and homage in itself). Hailee Steinfeld was surprisingly convincing in her role, which unfortunately can not be said about her 40 year old counterfeit (Elizabeth Marvel), who we meet towards the end of the movie. This last sequence and especially the very last two or three sentences which regarded LaBoeuf unfortunately ruined a good deal of the feel the movie had for me. The song that plays when the credit's roll comes as a shrill surprise at first but turns out to be a nice tune. 

Overall this was a very well made modern wild-west movie that mostly refrains from the pathos of other genre cousins (mainly "The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" (2007) ) and doesn't take itself too serious. I really enjoyed watching it and to say it with the words of a friend: "It wasn't a movie that kept me checking the time on my watch in anticipation for the end." 

A bullet-proof 7 out of 10!

The Apartment (1960)

final verdict for "The Apartment" (1960): This movie has everything "Two for the Seasaw" didn't have but is missing Robert Mitchum. I Guess Robert Wise tried to remake "The Apartment" in his movie. Should have known that putting a slumpy ending in is not going to make a movie better.  

Over-all this movie has better camerawork and better editing. The music and characters are basically equally as good. Shirley MacLaine acts her brilliant bratty role that we all know and love. Fred MacMurray and Jack Lemmon play their roles very convincingly, and although having antagonists of sorts is good it had to be noted that neither of them has the capabilities of a Robert Mitchum. 

Overall this is still the far better flick, Mr Wilder did good. This movie deserves the score I denied "Two for the Seasaw": 8 out of 10!

Lovesong for Bobby Long (2004)

final verdict for: "Lovesong for Bobby Long" (2004): Another one of those lucky picks. 

After seeing both Travolta and Johannson in so many mediocre movies lately it is refreshing to have them in a good one. All of the main cast are absolutely believable and most of the other cast too. The music is brilliantly chosen, the cinematography fitting most of the times.  

The only thing I don't really buy is the depiction of New Orleans as a city full of happy unemployed people or bartenders. I guess that is either just wishful thinking or make-believe. And yes, the story itself is a bit of cliché, but name one movie that is not using cliché as a tool of narration! 

Admittedly however, you also never really get the feeling the death of the mother has any importance for the plot other than to get it going. 

Overall, this movie is doing so many things so much better than most of its genre-cousins, that you can easily overlook the few flaws you will find. A solid 8 out of 10!