TIGAER-DESIGN.COM_.v5

I really liked the first one. The down to earth tone and feel of it. Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark. I couldn’t imagine someone else in that role. The second movie generated the same feeling I had for Iron Man 1. But what you immediately saw was that they amped it all up a notch. More action. More Humour. More everything. Part 2 was entertaining but not quite where the first part was.

Iron Man 3 starts after the events of The Avengers. Tony sits at home and tries to deal with his inner conflicts. That conflict basically is some sort of post traumatic stress syndrome. When Tony worked with the Avengers he understood that there are other heroes out there. He alone cannot save the world. In the end he is just a human with all human weaknesses. The only thing that makes him special is his armor. But he can’t have it with him all the time. And that’s kind of the plot of the movie. It shows us how vulnerable Tony is. When suddenly a terrorist organization is doing bombings and killing tons of innocent people. A man with the name of ‘The Mandarin’ is responsible and threatening the United States. Just for fun I guess since I cannot remember him saying something about what exactly his motivations are. Except the usual empirialism the USA represent. At the same time we have another new face entering the Ring. Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) is a scientist who’s trying to get Stark Industries to join his cause to find the ultimate cure for everything that could happen to a human beeing. Pepper Potts, in the name of Stark Industries, refuses the offer since, what Killian is looking for, could easily be used as a weapon. Killian is not amused. In the meantime Tony reacts to Mandarin’s threats, which leads to the complete destruction of Tony’s home. Now it’s personal and Tony wants to take Mandarin out.

The movie has a few twists which, at least for me, weren’t too surprising. The overall story felt a little flat and did not have the depth of the first two. There is a lot going on in this movie. A lot of location jumping which was a little exhausting. The action scenes were loaded with kaboom and eye candy. For some reason, after 3/4 of the movie, I didn’t care anymore. It was just even more CGKaboom. Especially the final battle at the end, when suddenly 30 or 40 different AI controlled Iron Man suits appear. This was just too much for me. Then at the end end we have the fistfight between Tony and the villain. That should have been the finale. That was done great and engaging. Thet 10 minutes of kaboom before that were just there becauuseeee… because. If I would have to use only two words to describe this movie then it would be “too loud!”. For no reason. The first one worked great without the massive action stuff.

What saves the movie are the actors. They all seemed to have had a fun experience with this film. The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow is still there and working. The additional cast did a nice job too. Ben Kingsley and especially Guy Pearce are worth to be mentioned as well. They also got the humour right again. There were a couple of well placed and timed ‘laugh out loud’ moments. It’s also worth to mention that Tony, for the most parts of the movie, is not in his armor. Which really made it a better movie. Due to the destruction of his home and laboratory, Tony gets put in situations where he has to be inventive (A-Team style) to find a way out. That are really nice moments that bring us a little closer to the character and show the difficulties he has to deal with.

There are lots of good parts in this movie. But also a couple that really bugged me and just felt like “meh”. I guess ultimately I wouldn’t say the movie is worse or better than any of the other two. It’s ‘just there’ with the other two movies.

The VFX work is pretty much great here. Everything looked seamless and the integration of the CG into the live action footage (and vice versa) looked pretty much flawless. The camera work is nothing special though. From that alone it’s not a movie you need to see on the big screen. Bluray would be enough. The 3d was amaaaaaazing… but no, I saw it in 2d and that was more than enough.

Overall it’s a fun movie that doesn’t expect too much off its audience. I personally just think they tried a little too hard after Iron Man 2 and The Avengers. However… it is entertaining!

Iron Man 3 on IMDb

This is probably the first of Lars Von Trier’s movies I’ve seen. I wanted to risk a look at Dogville but never really mustered up the interest. I surely know that his movies are a little special and you immediately get this vibe in Melancholia as well.

After an almost mesmerizing opening, with some really captivating shots, the actual story starts with a wedding. We follow Justine (Kirsten Dunst) through the evening. Along with all of the tirades and shenanigans that can happen when there is a big family meeting. It doesn’t take long and we recognize that Justine isn’t exactly the most happy person on the planet. Lets just say that Justine and me wouldn’t get along. There these moments when she’s truly adorable and one minute later it seems as if she gave up on everything. I constantly asked myself what the hell is wrong with her? We also learn that the opening scenes seem to be from a dream Justine had. But that doesn’t explain her character’s decisions and actions.However, I feel sorry for the groom. Especially during that one scene when she leaves him alone in a room to go for a walk and make love to a stranger outside. Sure enough the groom is leaving her a few scenes later. My only thought… “Good for him!”. I’m kind of like Udo Kier’s character in this movie. Constantly with a question mark hovering over my head.

Then we follow Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), the sister of Justine. Now they know a Planet called Melancholia is marching into our solarsystem. Obviously the movie doesn’t care about physics. Well, I admit I’m no expert, but wouldn’t the gravity/mass of Melancholia mix up some of the sensitive things that keep our solarsystem the way it is? Resulting in certain cataclysmic effects regarding Earth way before Melancholia actually hits or comes close? Yeah yeah, I guess Melancholia is more a metaphor instead of a real planet I guess. But anyway. In the meanwhile Justine fell into a strong depression and Claire is trying to help and stay close to her. Finally a woman that makes sense in this movie. In the meantime Melancholia comes closer to Earth. Claire doubts that Earth will survive the passing of Melancholia. While her husband John (Kiefer Suchterland) is trying to assure her that everything will be fine, she still finds no reason to believe him. Soon enough both find out that nothing good is about to happen.

Whether you like Justine or you don’t but Kirsten Dunst delivers a good performance. Even if I ask myself why that character is actually in the movie. The character I can more relate to is Claire. And that’s actually all I can say about the characters. Overall very good performances from everyone.

When it comes to the technical execution I really have some issues. Instead of constructing well composed shots it’s shaky cam most of the time. The movie shows in the beginning that it’s very well able to create some nice shots. So I’m not sure what the movie wants to tell us here. Maybe the camera work is so restless because it wants to build a connection to emotions ofthe characters. Aside of that I can add that the VFX work is ok but not overwhelming. But VFX are not what drives the movie… so it’s fine the way it is.

The final verdict is that the movie left me with a question mark. I’m not able to figure out the motive of the movie. Only the scenario is interesting to watch. But that scenario could have worked without the wedding part. So what is it trying to tell us? Maybe I’ll figure it out later… but right now I’m unable to.

7.2/10

Melancholia on IMDb

I tried to avoid any reviews for this one to go into it with no expectations and an open mind. I’m also not the biggest Tarantino fan and cannot really understand the hype around his persona. I guess he’s just a little too extroverted for my taste. When it comes to his movie work then I always appreciated what he tried to accomplish with his work. They all have a certain tone and feel that is special for Tarantino’s directing style and his directorial decisions. But overall his films don’t give me too much.

The first Tarantino movie that really surprised me was his ‘Inglourious Basterds’. I really liked this one. That could be mainly because of the appearance of so many german actors in it. Which was a genious move by Tarantino I would say. Aside of that it was just so beautifully shot! And now comes ‘Django Unchained’ and I was interested to see if the magic of the Basterds movie carried over a bit.

The story is actually fairly simple. Here we have our main character Django (Jamie Foxx) during the 1850s. At first he’s a slave but gets freed by a bounty hunter who needs him to confirm three targets he’s looking for. The bounty hunter, a german by the name of Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), now feels responsible for Django and both become friends. Schultz early on discoveres that Django is a very great help with all the bounty hunting business and decides to build a partnership with him. He soon learns that Django has a wife and both decide to find and free her too. On their way they get done some bounty hunting jobs and when the winter ends they start their journey to find the girl. Soon enough they got their first lead that gets them to a plantation and its owner Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Django and Schultz make up a plan to get to Candie and make him invite them to their plantage, where they indeed find Django’s wife. When Candie discoveres, with help of his ‘to the death’ loyal house slave (Samuel L. Jackson), the true intentions of Django and Schultz he goes a little mad and heads start to roll fast.

My last three moviegoing experiences were ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, ‘The Hobbit’ and now ‘Django’. All three of them with an overall running time of 165 minutes. Very long movies. Comparing all three I have to say that Django felt the shortest. The longest sitting was ‘The Hobbit’ for me. Django on the other hand delivers enough suspense to keep you interested. Action scenes were well paced, sprinkled nicely and well balanced into the different parts of the film. It had one or two lenghty moments but nothing that took me out of the movie much. On the other hand it’s a Tarantino movie. You got to expect lots of dialogue scenes.

Since the movie isn’t a big action spectacle and keeps a low profile, I have to talk about the acting in this one. Here the movie plays out its strenghts so damn well. Much like the ‘Basterds’ movie the dialogue scenes here are loaded with suspense. You never know what happens next or where it’s going. The main 4 people in this film are Django, Schultz, Candie and Candie’s house slave Stephen. Django’s part, to me, felt very very flat. And that is no critique. It is a very simple character and Jamie Foxx nails it nicely with mainly facial expressions that say more than words. Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson are the best here though. While Waltz plays the german dentist Dr. King Schultz in a way that makes the audience easily build a connection to him, DiCaprio plays an awesome slimey bad guy. Samuel L. Jackson took his character and plays it in a way that more than once left you thinking if he’s a good or bad guy. Jackson also plays a role that makes him really shine as an actor again. Something where he isn’t the ‘I can do everything and save the day’ type of guy. Actually a very vulnerable character in this movie.

Unlike the other two 160min movies I mentioned, ‘Django Unchained’ was not in 3d. It was also filmed traditionally with a film print. No digital cameras. And while I have nothing against digital camera work and (for the most part) nothing against 3d, I just have to say that it was such a pleasant experience to watch this movie! It was beautifully shot and I didn’t see any quality issues whatsoever. And the most important fact is that I was never taken out of the movie because of some stupidly executed post converted fake 3d effect. Despite the overwhelmingly positive critics and fan response I don’t think the 3d hype will stop. Instead I’ll see even more unnecessary stuff come out. Like 48 frames per second. I say USELESS!

The movie also generated a lot of buzz caught a lot of flak because of all the blatant racism going on in it. And there I have to ask why? While the movie is indeed very much fictional, I bet my right arm that the racism, portayed in this movie, is pretty much accurate for the 1850s. Yes the ‘N’ word is used in every sentence possible but nowhere in the movie does it say that it’s good to use this word. On the contrary! Every single time we see something cruel happen to one of the slaves we also see the reaction of the german Dr. King Schultz character. He’s through and through disgusted by how the black people are treated. And that’s the statement right there. Why is no one talking about that? I mean… think about how it must have been for a civilized person to see how brutal one human being can be to another, without any justifiable reason. And this brutality was just reality in that time. Much like the Nazi’s burning the jews in their concentration camps. Every now and then it’s necessary to remember people how it was not so long ago.

Did I mention that the movie is also very violent? No? Well then consider it mentioned now. The use of fake blood in this movie could surely easily fill a bathtub or two. And while this as well generated a lot of controversy I have to counter with the argument that this is a movie. A movie with fictional characters and a fictional story. People who are not able to separate reality from a movie have a problem to begin with. It’s also the responsiblity of the parents to not let their kids see such movies. Especially Tarantino films. I personally liked the violence in this movie. Its purpose to make certain scenes hard to watch just works and is intended. And certain scenes will definitely make you cringe a bit. I really liked this. It’s a bold and necessary move to stay true to the story that’s told in this movie.

To counter that hard reality and brutality of the 1850s, we have some very delicious kind of humour in this movie. The timing and execution of these, sometimes a little over the top, scenes is just perfect. Even the partly ‘over the topness’ doesn’t hurt the movie at all. First of all you are constantly reminded that this is a Tarantino movie. You got to expect the unexpected. And Tarantino delivers exactly that. And sometimes you really have to laugh out loud at what he’s delivering. I don’t know how this guy is doing it, but it works perfectly. Django Unchained might be the most funny movie Tarantino did so far. And the actors do a very great job at delivering that humour. Especially Christoph Waltz is just perfect in acting out the most usual lines of text in a way that makes them sound and look funny.

To round this up with technical things then I have to repeat what I said earlier. The movie is very pleasant to watch. And all that without 3d, digital camera work or 48 frames per second. This movie finally felt like a movie again. I kinda missed that. Tarantino movies are famous for their soundtracks and Django does have some interesting music choices as well. Some of them hit you in the face a bit. At least me. They, however, never felt too much out of place. The camera work and editing is an homage to the old spaghetti western movies. That style is all over the movie, works nicely and generates the right feel for the film.

Yes this movie managed to carry over what I liked in the ‘Inglourious Basterds’ movie. Enough babble… go treat yourself with one of the best movies out there. It’s worth the cash!

My final words are: DiCaprio should have been nominated for the Oscar!

8.3/10

Django Unchained on IMDb

This movie has a long history. It ended when Peter Jackson decided to take the directors seat by himself again. Originally Guillermo Del Toro was a name attached to that seat. And I’m fairly sure he would have done some great things. Ultimately I think the production problems drove him off and Jackson decided to do it. Del Toro nonetheless helped with the writing and I think, in some parts, you can clearly see that. This review is written from the ‘did not read the original book’, perspective. I usually have no problems when it comes to movies from books. I can understand that some book parts do not translate well on screen. So it’s natural and often necessary to compromise.

On a technical note this movie generated a lot of buzz because of a new 48 frames per second projection. Naturally a movie has 24 frames per second. That is basically all information our eye needs to enjoy a movie. 48 frames per second make movements look much more crisp instead of motion blurred. Which gives, especially fast cutted action scenes, a much clearer picture. The downside is that a lot of other parts of the film look very very amateur handycam like. But more about that later. How was the actual movie you might ask? Well. Let’s see.

It starts out in the Shire. Bilbo Baggins lives a good life and doesn’t want that to change. One day a weird old man appears and recruits Bilbo for an adventure. That old man is Gandalf The Grey. Together with the dwarf Thorin Oakenshield, Gandalf wants to take back their city. They lost it due an attack by the dragon ‘Smaug’. Who is still holding the city captured, which happened a long time ago. The dwarven civilization basically lost its home. Thorin wants to reclaim the city as well as the gold and riches burried under the mountain! Not without help. Beside Gandalf there are eleven other dwarven friends who want to go with them. Loyal to the core and willing to fight everything that is crossing their path. And then there is Bilbo. He is not exactly happy when the company of dwarfs marches into his home. Gandalf has a plan though. He wants to have Bilbo with them. As if he knows that Bilbo will play a part on that journey that no one else would be able to play.

After some hesitation Bilbo decides to go with them. That’s something I can relate to. I’m a little like Bilbo when it comes to these things. I’m not the adventure guy too… but I know that it’ll be fun when you look back and you will also have some stories to share when it’s over. I guess that’s what Bilbo drove when he decided to join the adventure. From that point on it’s Bilbo who kind of works as the point of view for the audience.

From then on we follow the group to their first adventures. The dwarfs have their doubts about the role Bilbo could possibly play. He got no experience with anything… except being a hobbit and liking good food. Bilbo, however, will get his chances to prove himself to the group. Eventually he’ll gain their respect and becomes a valuable asset.

Instead of preaching down the whole film, which would be like writing a short story, I want to go to a few things I really liked and don’t liked, about the film. It could involve spoilers!

What I liked are the little homages to the characters of the first trilogy. Not necessarily the scenes that involved Frodo and old Bilbo. It was more the use of specific images we know from ‘The Fellowship’ movie. The behaviour of Bilbo in the beginning, when he tried to get rid of Gandalf. Martin Freeman almost to the splitsecond re-enacts the reaction of Bilbo in ‘Fellowship’, when unwanted visitors knocked on his door. There were a couple of scenes like that. Again in Bilbo’s home, when Gandalf hits the light with his head, for example. That’s a little fanservice to the true fans of the first trilogy.

Then there is that one scene in the mountains. Again there were a couple of scenes/camera angles that reminded me of the ‘Fellowship’ movie. For some reason we have some giant mountain/rock people having a fight. Our band of heroes is trying to move along a cliff when they see that they are part of a giant moving rock. For some reason this rock is having an argument with another giant rock and you have this amazing fight sequence going on. Our heroes, of course, try to get out of there alive. All that while these giant things fight each other, causing immense tremors and falling pieces of rocks. This scene was a lot of fun to watch. I would love to know why these giants were fighting. I guess we’ll never know.

Another thing I enjoyed was Radagast. He belongs to Gandalf’s people and has quite a knowledge when it comes to magic and especially nature. Even if his whole short plotline feels a litte ‘thrown in’… I enjoyed it. It gave a different perspective on things.

One of the highlights, again, was Gollum. From a technical point of view, with all the technical progress since the first trilogy, he now looks even better. The integration into the live action footage looked pretty much seamless and his interaction with Bilbo flawless. Andy Serkis (who plays Gollum as reference in the live action footage) brings out the best again. The animation of Gollum’s face, when he’s arguing with himself, is just great to watch. He makes Martin Freeman look pale in these scenes. And don’t get me wrong, I think Martin Freeman does a great job playing Bilbo.

The movie to me felt very much like a rollercoaster ride. You have these action sequences that work pretty much great all together. Then you have some quiet scenes that, I feel, could have been reduced a little bit. One scene for example is when the dwarfs begin to sing their song in Bilbo’s house. While I understand that it’s trying to set a mood and tone for that group of people, I also think that this wouldn’t have been necessary. You can see that this company of dwarfs is a tight pack of wolves when they’re having their meal. No need for that song in my eyes.

Back to that scene between Gollum and Bilbo. I heard that it’s accurate to the book and that can’t be a wrong thing, right? Well, it felt a little long for my taste. To see Gollum in action was great but somehow I felt that whole segment was a little stretched out. Sometimes it’s better to cut down certain things.

At the same time, when Gollum and Bilbo have their standoff, we follow Gandalf and the other guys on their escape from Goblin city. This whole escape sequence also felt a little too long. Don’t get me wrong, that chase/escape scene was entertaining and they had some cool ideas with it. Maybe it was because of the 48 frames per second. I literally felt exhausted when this scene was over. I think all the speed and extra detail (that otherwise would get lost in the motion blur of the usual 24 frames per second) was a little too much.

Let’s talk about that 48 frames per second issue. I have a mixed opinion about it. On one hand the extra visible detail, in some scenes, really worked nice. Other moments did not look so well. The biggest problem is that it immediately makes you see that the environment is fake. Everything feels unnatural. You immediately know where a matte painting or cg was used. Due to that we lose a lot of magic that the original movies had. Which brings me to the conclusion that the 48fps would be great for animated movies – since it makes the 3d effect work more crisp. Movies that mix live action and cg… no, I don’t think that works well.

It’s a little funny. The 48 frames per second make the movie having almost a video game aesthetic. On the same note the 48 frames reduce the motion blur to make the picture sharper. While video games nowadays implement an extra motion blur effect, to make the game more feel like a movie and therefor more cinematic. Do movies now want to look like video games while video games want to look like movies for the longest time? Strange development. Which brings me to the visual effects.

And for the visual effects there is not much to say. The 48 frames per second spoiled the experience a bit. The whole film looks very fake. Even scenes with real backgrounds looked fake. Which is a shame. If the movie would have been projected on a usual 2d/24 frames setup… I think it would look just beautiful. A lot of beautiful matte painting work as well as superbly detailed 3d characters.

While they did cut out elements from the first three movies, that made fans go wild, it makes the impression that they’re almost desperate to get everything they possibly can, into the new movies. Understandable when you think about the fact that the first trilogie had three massive books on their backs. The new trilogy has only one book to go from.

But enough disection for now. Would I recommend the film? Yes I would. It’s one of the better productions these days. Even if it doesn’t have as much heart as any of the first trilogy’s movies, it still works. It also manages to bring over the charme of Middle-Earth very well. I would also suggest to skip the 48 frames per second as well as the 3d. If you can catch a normal 2d screening, it’s probably the best way to enjoy this film.

A solid 7.9 from me. (Rating for the 48fps/3d version)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on IMDb

Man I hope this guy will feel bad for the rest of his life! Damn. There is rarely a film that really makes me angry. In this case it’s even good that it does. Because that’s what the movie wants. It shows a dilemma, of what would be the right decision to make, in a special situation. A decision that can change a whole life.

We all know that our day in day out life is restricted by rules. Even more in the civilized world, where there is a police and (normally) a clear distinction between right and wrong. The movie tries to analyze when it’s right to ‘bend’ the rules to prevent something from happening. It’s about ethics, morals and who decides what’s good or bad.

Now the story leads us to Boston, where a little girl gets kidnapped. No one knows where she is or who might have taken her. The police cannot find her and the media is all on this case. So the family hires Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck), a private investigator. He, together with his girlfriend Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan), are well known in the neighborhood and know ways to find out certain details. Angie hesitates at first. She doesn’t feel too comfortable taking the case of a kidnappes little girl. There she brings up a valid point that works throughout the whole movie. What if something goes wrong, something you have to live with, for the rest of your life? What if…? While both visit the mother, we can see that the mother is not exactly a role model for parenthood. Despite Angie’s hesitation, the two decide to take the case and team up with two cops. Remy Bressant (brilliant Ed Harris) and Nick Poole (John Ashton) are long time serving cops. These guys have seen a lot and you immediately see that they want that girl back. No matter the costs. So the four start their search and soon find first leads. But something feels wrong about all this.

I don’t want to go into spoiler territory, since this is a film you should build your own opinion of. Let’s just say that the story is perfectly written for asking exactly the questions the movie wants to ask. Is it wrong to do something good, even if it means to break the law? Is it good to hold up the law even if it means the consequences are no happily ever after?

This movie is another splendid example of how capable Ben Affleck’s directing is. He really knows how to do a movie! His brother Casey does very well in the lead role and it feels like he and his brother are a great team. You can see Patrick’s (Casey) inner workings, how he’s trying to justify his decisions to himself. All through his face and eyes. Or Ed Harris as the worn out cop, who has seen his fair share of crap throughout his career. That’s what I would call great acting. And that goes for pretty much all the main actors in this film. You’re always sitting there thinking “ah now I know what direction the film is going…” and then the movie takes a turn into another direction. That’s at least what I was thinking.

So yeah, this movie made me angry! And it’s good! That’s what movies should do. Provoking emotions and asking the right questions. That’s what this movie does and I can only applaud that.

7.9/10

Gone Baby Gone on IMDb

If I would have to pick one movie that truly, from the bottom of its soul, defines ‘war’… then it would be Apocalypse Now. This movie left an impression when I saw it the first time and still does when I watch it today. There is such a depth and so many layers of detail to it, that no other production captured as good as this title did/does. There are a few close ones like ‘The Deer Hunter’. But when it comes to portraying the sheer madness, and what it all can do to your psyche/mind, then Apocalypse Now is this one milestone in moviemaking history that got it pretty much all right.

The psychedelic hotel scene with Martin Sheen, the famous helicopter scene, Robert Duvall’s Kilgore character, the huge massive napalm explosion, the slaughter scene at the end. This movie is so full of iconic details, that it’s almost unthinkable that the movie had so many production problems, they almost had to shut it down. ‘Hearts Of Darkness’ sheds some light on the production of that movie. Francis Ford Coppola’s wife got the opportunity to document a lot of things throughout the production. From day one up to the last day, we can see how much work and determination went into this project. At one point in production a huge typhoon even destroyed the already built sets and forced them to take a break for a couple of weeks. From the beginning there were financing problems that forced Coppola to use his own money to keep the movie on track. He really took some risks for that monster of a film.

The fascinating thing to see is how, not only the characters in the movie itself, turn more and more psyched out. The production crew went through the same thing. Filming happened on the Philippines. Of course the humid conditions and vegetations are similar to Vietnam. All that affected the crew and equipment as well. And after more than 230 days of shooting the whole crew has had such an experience that it made them not being who they were before. The documentary has a lot of footage from the sets. A lot of footage where Coppola is trying to explain the actors why their characters do what they do. Coppola constantly rewriting scenes and dialogue, trying to get that picture in his head, on paper and eventually on film. There is almost no scene where you are not able to see his inner struggle. To me he seemed like a driven man. He had to finish this monster, no matter the costs.

Under such conditions you are vulnerable for wrong decisions. One that always comes up is Marlon Brando. Coppola had the chance to cast someone else but he kept Brando. I personally can see how someone else could have played Kurtz’s character better. But I also belong to that, I guess rare, group that doesn’t care too much. Brando’s performance, by no means, destroys the movie or experience (and yes, I think that film is rather more an experience than a movie) for me. All the things that happen along the journey that leads to Kurtz are so impressive that Brando’s part doesn’t hurt. Yes, it may make the finale feel a little weak, but to me the trip as a whole works just fine.

This great piece of documentary takes you by the hand and lets you experience the movie Apocalypse Now from a very different point of view. As a movie fan it’s a gem! After wachting Apocalypse Now I often feel like hit by a big giant rock. And this documentary delivers some answers to the question ‘why’ it does. This monster of a movie wants you to feel that way. It even made the creators go through some kind of hell. A nice piece of documented movie history.

9/10

Hearts Of Darkness on IMDb

If you are firm with movies then you probably know the 1995 ‘Judge Dredd’ vehicle with Sylvester Stallone as Dredd. Although I think it does have some cool moments, I heard from various comic fans that it isn’t exactly very true to the original. And with an ego like Stallone in it… it’s pretty much sure that he changed quite a few things, moving it further and further away from the comic. But now there is a new one. And this version also gets a lot of good reviews from all over the press and net. But is it better than the Stallone one and more true to the comic? And is it always better to stay more true to the source material?

The story of the movie is as simple as it can be. The world we see shows a dystopian future. The movie doesn’t make a mystery about the fact that the chance, to live a good life, is very much not existent in this world. If people aren’t living in a slum or ghetto then they live in so-called megablocks. These consist to up to 70k people living in them. Really huge structures. Crime rate is over the roof and only the department of justice is able to fight the crime. At least to a certain degree. In this future the cops are called judges. These judges have the license to kill so to say. If they find you guilty in a crime then you are basically done.

We follow Judge Dredd. A man of not many words. But we can see and feel he’s eager to fight the bad guys. On this particular day he is getting a recruit to his side. Dredd’s job is to find out if the rookie is worthy enough to become a judge. A distress call gets them both into one of these megablocks. Of course this megablock inhabits a huge drug factory. Sure enough havoc breaks out, and we follow our two protagonists managing the chaos.

Yes a very simple plot and a not too original one either. Not the strength of the film to be honest. What it makes so good is that it doesn’t compromise its premise. The movie delivers what it promises and what it shows looks amazingly great. This is the first movie in a long time that makes great use of the 3d feature. The visuals are really beautifully shot. The action scenes are approached in a very old-school kind of way. Movies like Robocop, Die Hard or the 1990 Total Recall come to mind. Movies that deliver good looking and gritty action. There are no middle ways where they try to implement drama or conflicts. It’s just the good guys against the bad guys. And that simple structure, if done right, is fun.

Character moments are very rare. But when they’re happening it always makes sense. Especially when it comes to the law and jurisdiction in that world. Every now and then the recruit questions the law but also understands when it’s necessary to go the hard way. All this is done in a completely non-cheesy way. Good thing! What brings me to the acting.

The cast we got in this film doesn’t have any superstars. Karl Urban, who should be a superstar, plays Dredd without to invest too much. Not a bad thing! After all you only see his chin all the time. Urban noted that he’s a long time fan of the comic and delivers a good interpretation of his character. The recruit is played by a young lady named Olivia Thirlby. She’s pretty much doing the same thing Urban does. Trying to keep it real instead of too much drama. And that’s just right for this kind of movie. Lena Headey gets to play the leader of the bad guys. Some great makeup effects on her make her look wonderfully evil. Which fits her character of course. Overall I can see how it isn’t easy to find a character too root for. We don’t get too much background for all of them. Except the recruit. She is the connection to the audience. If you don’t root for her then you probably don’t like the movie at all.

Overall it is a movie that does a lot of things right. Especially things that have been missing in action movies so much over the last years or even decade. And that’s movies that follow a straight line. Yes the movie is violent! But in context of what story they want to tell, it’s necessary. And all the blood and gore is justified for believability and style purposes. You could argue that the movie celebrates its violence. So what? Have you seen any video games as of late? Blood and gore all over the place.

The movie is indeed better than the 1995 version and it’s closer to the comic. No compromises in style and execution. A few lengthy parts here and there though. It seems to be a good thing to stay closer to the source material in this case. The Stallone movie had a lot of cheesy and unintentionally funny moments and comic relief that made you more laugh about instead of with the movie. The new one does know very well what it wants to be. The 3d and general esthetic look very awesome. Definitely worth a watch!

7.7/10

Dredd on IMDb

This one was on my radar for years. Even before the first trailer hit the internet. It was a very ambitious movie project, completely financed by independent production companies as well as a significant part of internet crowdfunding. It is a movie that follows the paths of a traditional b-movie. But is it a good or bad b-movie?

The story is pretty simple and if you’re reading this, I don’t think I have to explain a lot. It’s basically about Nazi’s who found a hideout on the dark side of the moon. There they managed to build a society and follow their traditions. One of the traditions is, of course, to take over the planet. Planet Earth of course. So there is a long time plan on the move, to take over good old mother Earth. In the movie the USA are closing in on an election. Madame president (who does look a little like Sarah Palin) sent a 2 man team to the moon to take some nice pictures that shall help her to win the election. One of the guys is a model. A good looking guy… a black guy. He discoveres the Nazi base and gets arrested by them. He’s one of the protagonists we follow. The more he sees what’s going on, he wants to cross the evil plans, the Nazis are ready to execute. That starts a string of happenings and hijinks.

Now the first thing you can do wrong is to go into the movie with A: expectations & B: being easily offended by jokes that are politically incorrect. Some of the jokes are quite forced. Others require you to have some education to understand them. So it’s a weird mix of poor and quality jokes in there. Also the dialogue feels a little clunky at times. On the other hand we have actually a nice cast, that tries to get the best off of the stuff they got to work with.

One more thing is that the movie tries a little too hard to bring out a message. And my guess is that the message is something like: “when it comes down to greed and surviving… there will be no difference between a Nazi or anyone else” or “as long as we have the same enemy we will work together, but afterwards it will only take us a split second to find ourselfes new ones or even turn against former allies”.

Some might argue that a roughly 8 million dollar budget is a lot of money. But looking at the visual quality this movie has, it’s quite a remarkable job. The battle scenes in space look great. A lot of CG work in general. And all of it looks pretty neat! They also work with a ton of greenscreen sets. And yes, you can see it. Nonetheless it’s important to say that it really works in the context of the production. Much like a 60mil dollar ‘Sky captain and the world of tomorrow’ from 2004. It’s crazy how far CG production came in these 8 years. Will be interesting to see what other people might come up with. Now that the possibilities are there and easier to handle.

So my final verdict is that I tend to say that it is a legitimate good movie. You can see that the production really put some heart, sweat and effort into it all. And that is what divides a good b-movie from a bad one. All the missing elements of a big budget movie, that a b-movie obviously has, can be filled with heart and effort. And that is what you can see in this film. Yes it is clunky and cheesy… but hey it’s also a lot of fun. And that’s what the producers want you to have. Plain fun.

And maybe, only a little tiny maybe, it brings people to educate themselfes a little more about the real third reich.

7.5/10

Iron Sky on IMDb

Here we have a movie that is trying to get behind why kids (or people in general) go on a rampage. Most prominently in schools. It touches a subject matter that, from my point of view, will never be fully dissectible. There are just far too many variables playing into the question we are always asking… ‘why’. Did this movie shed some light onto the issue or does it leave us knowing exactly as much as we did before? Lets see.

The story is told from the point of view of a worn out woman. Tilda Swinton brilliantly portraits that lady, Eva, with her very own style of acting. She manages it to really show the viewer how down that character really is. That poor woman is pretty much going through hell. But why? Now the movie is told with flashbacks. At the beginning it’s a little confusing to follow, where the movie actually is at a given point. In the past or in the present? It’s well enough done to follow though. It just requires you to really focus on the film. We follow Eva in trying to get herself back into life. Trying to socialize again. She gets looks from everyone she meets on the streets. That’s something the movie does good. Certain points overdo that a little though. Nonetheless it’s Tilda Swinton’s great work that makes you feel awkward along with the character she plays. The viewer soon understands that something must have happened in the past.

As soon as the flashbacks kick in, we get to see the earlier Eva. She falls in love with Franklin (John C. Reilly) and they decide to form a relationship. Soon she gets pregnant and Kevin is born. Right there you can see that Eva does not feel too comfortable. Nonetheless she accepts her natural duties as a mother and takes care of the kid. Just like any other mother would do. She does not do anything different or wrong. The baby though acts weird. It cannot stop crying and drives Eva crazy. Several flashbacks later we see Eva trying to play with a now young boy. The kid still acts weird, and no matter what Eva does, she always gets ignored or (to use a trendier word) dissed. Every now and then Kevin throws her a bone and does what she demands. Making her feel like she finally got through to him. The next moment he’s back to evil again.

That procedure we see throughout the movie. Eva trying to be a good mother. She is doing nothing wrong. Every other child would love it to have her as a mother. Not Kevin though. On the other hand he seems to really love his father. And Franklin cannot understand why Eva has so many problems. At some point in the movie Kevin is even trying to play out his two parents against each other. And right there you can see that the kid isn’t stupid. He is a highly intelligent boy that really knows what he’s doing. Does he know why he is doing it? I would say no.

While these flashback bring us closer to what happened to Eva, we watch her struggling in the present. she’s having a hard time and actually no one to talk to. Aside of that she doesn’t seem to be a very talky/open person anyway. Which makes me wonder about the movie’s title. Because they actually NEVER seriously talk about Kevin. Yes both parents know there is an issue. Eva more than Franklin. But Eva never gets her mouth and heart open. There were moments in the movie where I screamed at her “now start talking!!!”. She swallows everything. All the indignity and ignorance from her son and her husband. And that is what makes this movie so incredibly hard to watch. I personally know people that, for the sake of their lifes, wouldn’t talk about something personal. So Eva is not a stupid character. She’s just a character like any other, with her own qualities. And talking is not one of her qualities. She also never gets loud. And sometimes as a parent you have to get loud. Otherwise your kid will not understand what’s right and wrong.

After seeing Kevin growing up to be a teenager, and the closer we come to the end of the film, we can see where it’s headed. Kevin decides to go on a rampage on his school. And that’s what Eva is trying to deal with. The aftermath of what’s happened. While Eva certainly is not the strongest mother ever, I personally could not see her do anything wrong with how she tried to raise Kevin. The only real flaw I saw simply was that she never got out of herself and talked to someone. I personally am not very open and talky person too and can see why Eva can’t too. But still, if something seems wrong with my kid… I’ll go out and try to find out what’s going on. I, most certainly, would talk to my partner about it.

At the end of the movie Eva is visiting Kevin in jail. She’s afraid of him, and we can see that throughout the movie. But she still cannot/refuses to let him go. She feels guilty for what he’s done. She still wants to understand him. And for a split second, in Kevin’s eyes, we get a glimpse of understanding from his side. A short thought process of “maybe I did do something really bad”. That is at least what I saw.

Man this movie was a hard sitting. Not because it’s a bad movie. It tries to ask valid questions. It’s not able to answer all of them. which is good because it leaves room for interpretation and discussion. Tilda Swinton delivers a fantastic job. The kids who played Kevin were great too. There is no way you will like Kevin. He’s played so wonderfully evil that it sometimes feels unreal. Children can be very cruel.

On a technical level there is not much to complain. Eva’s depiction/look after the incident uses some great make-up work, to make her look like she’s going through hell. The music choices at some parts of the film felt a little odd. As if they tried to cheer up the dark happenings of the film a bit. It adds a nice contrast though.

Ultimately there are some questions left. Do some people get born evil? Are there some people that are just plain evil, without any chance to ever fully psychologically understand why? Even these people don’t understand why they behave and act the way they do. They just do without thinking about consequences. It’s a hard topic, especially for a movie.

Nonetheless I think the movie mostly succeeds. It makes you think about the subject matter. It gives you a hint of how the family of a rampage shooting person probably looks. Without any distortion by the media or some psychologist who thinks he can explain the world for you. Does the movie explain why these mentally ill people do what they do? No. The movie doesn’t even try to speculate. It just shows reality. And some things just cannot be explained.

7.7/10

We Need To Talk About Kevin on IMDb

First of all I have to thank Brian Neufang for sending me a festival screener version of the film. The film is not yet officially released and tries to raise some additional resources via Kickstarter. So, if you’re interested in backing a movie project that delivers some great quality… head to the kickstarter page for a trailer. But what’s the movie about?

The movie starts with introducing us to the two main characters of the film. Both of them are salesmen, who try to get their own invented and manufactured products, into the world. You immediately see that these two guys believe in their products and work really hard to promote their business. One of the guys is Matt (Dallas Roberts). He’s the inventor and basically the brain behind all the products. The other guy is Sam (Jeremy Renner). He is kind of the muscle and drive that keeps things going. Sometimes that ‘drive’ goes a little too far. Sam and Matt have some tiny gambling problems. Sam moreso than Matt. So it happens that their company runs out of cash and tries everything to get money to keep things rolling. The gambling part doesn’t exactly work out and Matt falls into a hole. Their business goes down and both have to go parted ways. To make things even worse, one of their products gets ripped off by another, much bigger, company.

Pretty much on the bottom, with their dreams ruined, we see both of them trying to find a way through all of this. Every now and then we have scenes that bring the viewer closer to the characters. They talk about their fears and how they try to deal with them. Until Matt gets that one creative spark, that could change it all. Immediately he’s going after it and tries to catch that spark. He works very hard to get a prototype done, and when he got it, things start to roll. This is the fun part of the film. And no… it suddenly doesn’t all run smoothly to Matt’s and Sam’s favour. There still are some rocks to climb for them. Especially the money situation always throws them back. Matt’s wife Gina (Ayelet Zurer) comes into play. She left Matt earlier in the movie, as part of the downward spiral, because of his gambling. She tried to help him wherever possible. Matt disappointed her too many times. Now with that new idea and product, she wants to be on board. She gets together all possible cash she can muster up, and offers it to Matt and Sam, under the condition that she will be a part of the team. Matt and Sam have no other choice than to agree. Together they go on to get their product out into the world.

At that point it’s fair to say that all the actors have a nice chemistry going. All the scenes have a very natural feel. There isn’t too much ‘hollywood’ in this movie, even if it got its happy end. You see characters suffer. You see chacaters fail. On the other hand the movie also generates a lot of funny situations and has some good humour going. Knowing people who run their own business, I can relate to the problems these guys run into. There are times that are a constant shuffle and then there are times where things pick up a bit again. Ups and downs.

Some parts of the movie feel a little rushed and the ending felt adequate but a little too soon. Once their business picked up, we don’t get to see much of the aftermath. I would have liked to see how they managed to land the one or another big deal. But maybe that would have made the movie’s running time too long. So yes, there are pros and contras to everything. You could also argue that this story, of people overcoming business problems and rising to the top, isn’t a new one. And yes, you are right. If it’s done in such a charming way, with such charismatic actors and characters, it just works though. These are the stories that spread hope. They tell and inspire you to not give up on your ideas and dreams, as long as you are willing to work for them. And while these sayings are an old hat… they still are true. And this movie captures exactly that truth of no pain no gain, in a really nice and charming way.

A 7.9/10 from me.

So, if you like what you’ve read, applaud the production for its efforts to stay independent or you’re just interested in the subject matter, head to the kickstarter page and show some support, to help the movie getting a proper release. It surely deserves it.

Ingenious on IMDb