IkkegoeMikke's My Opinion as a Movie-Freak

Extraterrestrial
2014
Colin Minihan

It's a basic simple agreement with one cardinal rule: Do not engage.
And you, you engaged.
What do you mean?
Sweetheart, you shot one of them. Broke the treaty. Now they're out for blood.


What happens if you put a bullet in the body of a typical alien ? Yes, you get a kind of pissed E.T. that wants revenge because you have breached a contract. Believe it or not, but after the incident in Roswell, the US government made a pact with the Martians (or whatever other planet they come from). In that way our globe is kept from total destruction. In exchange, these Dr. Josef Mengele-lookalike creatures may abduct from time to time some earthlings so they can use them as guinea pigs during certain experiments. Ultimately it's a kind of "Dark Skies meets Friday the 13th." A typical Sci-fi slasher film with superficial acting, some gore moments and sometimes inanimate SEs (Especially the kidnapping of victims doesn't look that spectacular). But in the end the tone and mood of the film changes completely and you even feel like being aboard of the U.S.C.S.S. Nostromo.


April (Brittany Allen), Kyle (Freddie Stroma) and some mutual friends are the ones that have to go through this confrontation. Oh yeah, the whole thing is set in a cabin somewhere in a godforsaken place (where recently a phone booth was completely sucked up into the air, along with a hysterical woman who was hiding in it). I wouldn't recommend anyone to book a vacation in a cabin somewhere in the woods, because the misery you can encounter there, as Hollywood tries to show us, is terrifying.

Of course you get that terrible Hollywood cliché of having the usual annoying brat in between those teens. This time it's Seth who got on my nerves from the outset. The treatment he gets in the end was satisfying enough and even made me smile. Any way, these party animals witness a strange crash in the woods, while bickering like little kids on the porch. And who do you think is so smart to go and investigate? Of course, these by alcohol intoxicated nitwits. Probably they wanted to make some selfies at the scene, so they could have their "five minutes of fame". It turns out to be a crashed flying saucer (everyone immediately gets sober).


Despite the sometimes extremely poor dialogues and the accumulation of all possible known ingredients from other SF's and horrors, it was still a highly entertaining film that had some tension, some well-timed (but oh so predictable) scares and a menacing, dark atmosphere. Brittany Allen managed to give a successful interpretation of the with feelings struggling city girl, who emerged into a fierce fighter who tries to survive. The fact that she's surrounded by some stupid idiots, is ofcourse a reason why her personality stands out . The most amusing roles were played by Gil Bellows (Sheriff Murphy) and Michael Ironside (Travis). The last one I couldn't place immediately, but he looked familiar. Until I spontaneously started to shout "Jester's dead. Yeehaw, Jester's Dead". The ultra cool flight instructor from "Top Gun" was transformed into some crazy Vietnam vet who cultivated marijuana on a closed area and meanwhile kept an eye on the universe. Unfortunately, his contribution is fairly limited. Bellows (the rock'n'roll rebel Tommy from "The Shawshank Redemption") plays the tough sheriff who maintains order with an iron fist and is indirectly involved in the whole story of the suddenly emerging space creatures who look like anorexics. The way it turns out for him, was surprising and funny at the same time.



The twists and turns in the story are sometimes unexpected and ensure that it continues to fascinate. As I mentioned earlier, the final part of this movie feels like you've arrived in a completely different film. Only the end was pretty abrupt and unsatisfying. But in general you can assume that the gore horror sections combined with the rather exciting atmosphere and sudden twists, make sure that this is a fast-paced and fun-filled film that provides momentary entertainment. A film that is composed of several layers: a violent horror flick with intense human suffering and sorrow, dislocated families, a struggle for survival, some youngsters struggling in their relationships with each other and at the same time you can feel the humor lurking throughout this motion picture. Despite its limited budget, the camera work is sometimes admirable and some CGI's are masterfully handled. Don't expect for once original created aliens. They still look the same as they were portrayed on a "Asimov's SF Adventure Magazine" : lengthy basketball players, ultra thin with an egg-shaped head with black holes as eyes and as far as I could see I assume their development of the clothing industry is still in its infancy. And as a climax you get the anal scene which looks gruesome and horrible, but at the same time it's hilarious as hell. In other words I appreciated the entertainment value of this flick ...

Horns
2013
Alexandre Aja

“How about you guys beat the **** out of each other and the winner gets an exclusive interview with me?”

I must admit that I admire Daniel Radcliffe at this moment. He does his utmost best to shake off the mark of "Harry Potter". After years waving around with a magic wand as an apprentice, he aimed his attention to very different projects, soundly deviating from what we are used of him. "The woman in black" was a box-office hit but still had the same atmosphere as his previous work : dark, macabre and it took place in a scary, old mansion (A kind of tiny Hogwarts). "Kill your Darlings" is a totally different category. A philosophical tinted film about revolutionary poets and writers and where Radcliffe probably had to browse intensely through some manuals about homosexuality. And then there is "Horns". A religiously tinged horror with a hefty dose of humor as additive. However, all this can't hide the fact that the basis of the film is a pure romantic story about embracing love and persuasion to undermine this because fate has decided otherwise.


Add to this a sort of detective story, an old-fashioned revenge motif and a whodunit theme, and you'll soon conclude that this is a melting pot of different genres. At one point I didn't know whether I had to watch it in a relaxing way or in a tense way. Some humorous parts were just attempts to be funny, while the gore horror-like scenes were sometimes laughable. I also thought the motive to saddle Ig with a pair of oversized horns, was rather unclear. Was it because he had to undergo the wrath of God after vandalizing some religious symbols? Or was it a symbolic sign for the demons that lingered inside him ? Or was it Satan himself who granted him the opportunity of a demonic force so he could track down the perpetrator ?


The original story was written by Joe Hill (son of Stephen King), and tells the tale of Ig Perrish (Daniel Radcliffe), who is accused of murdering his girlfriend Merrin (June Temple). Despite the fact that he keeps saying he's innocent, he is treated as a pariah by his hometown and is continuously chased by a gang of paparazzi. Until one day he wakes up with a pair of horns on his forehead.


The weird thing is that people spontaneously confess their deepest secrets and obsessions whenever they are near Ig. This leads to some hilarious scenes like visiting the doctor, the gang of journalists, the patrolling police officers or the scene in the local pub. And always you'll see a bewildered Radcliffe who doesn't understand what's going on. Ok, this was fun at the beginning, but after a few times applying this trick, it gets boring. Ultimately, only Ig's brother and his friend Lee continue to support him. Lee is a lawyer and he helps the heavy drinking Ig in a legal way. His brother Terry dwells mostly higher spheres because of the massive use of drugs, but ultimately he's the only one of the family that still believes in the innocence of Ig.


Radcliffe pulls out all the stops to bring the figure Ig as credible as possible. It's his merit that you feel sympathy for this man who stands at the edge looking into the abyss. A desperate victim who by his frantic attempt to apprehend the offender, degenerates into a cruel demonic character with a bunch of snakes as companionship. The transformation Radcliffe undergoes towards the end is wonderful to see. But despite the weathered look and stubble of an alcoholic, Radcliffe continues to look like a teenager. Only Temple can still convince as the charming childhood love of Ig who's also fighting her own demons. The rest of the cast has little impact or plays merely a supporting role. The denouement is a mix of fantasy and horror elements. Apart from a few gore fragments, it's a typical story of which one could make a perfect episode for "Tales of the Crypt." In terms of entertainment, it's quite successful, but it's not of a real high level. A demonic comedy one does not really know which direction it wants to go.

The Living
2014
Jack Bryan

What I do isn’t about the people that die.
It's about the people that are left alive.
They get the short end of the stick, as far as I'm concerned.

"The Living" is a basic revenge film in which the reprisal turns out quite differently than initially intended. A social drama about domestic violence and alcoholism, although I started wondering after a while how critical this alcohol problem was. The evolution to this violent abuse wasn't discussed. How could it come to this? Were there already signs of an oncoming problem? And were there cases of domestic violence already in the past? You're kept in the dark when it comes to these relevant considerations.


The first image, accompanied by music from The de Luca Brothers, is that of some empty beer bottles scattered around on the ground and an unconscious Teddy (Fran Kranz), who apparently is sleeping it off. Upon awakening he finds out he has a bloody hand and his wedding ring is missing, after which he becomes aware something terrible happened the previous night. The fact that his young wife Molly (Jocelin Donahue) is no longer present in the house, confirms his suspicion. Molly has fled to her parents' home where her mother Angela (Joelle Carter) and brother Gordon (Kenny Wormald) still live. When Teddy arrives there and Molly returns with him despite everything that happened, Angela threatens to use her shotgun and shoot Teddy. Simultaneously she's also furious about Gordon defending his sister in a lax way. Pissed off about what happened to his sister, Gordon takes the advice of a workmate (who knows someone who also knows someone else who could teach a person a lesson), and he goes looking for this person to solve the problem once and for all.


Unfortunately this is, despite some brilliant performances, a fairly banal story with a predictable storyline and no surprising conclusion. The whole film actually just shows the emotional relationship between a few people. First, the fragile and broken relationship between Molly and Teddy. Molly makes it clear to Teddy that he has to do everything to make up for the incurred suffering. What bothered me in this part of the story, was twofold. Teddy doesn't really resemble a typical alcoholic who tends to use violence against his wife. He looks remarkably fresh after an evening of heavy drinking (with a solid blackout as a result) and seemingly he doesn't have problems with staying away from booze. And Molly didn't need much time to forgive him again. Teddy didn't have to pay enormously for his actions. But I'm convinced this is most common in this kind of situations.


The second relationship arising in this film is that between the timid, uncertain Gordon and Howard (Chris Mulkey), the psychopathic killer who isn't afraid of murdering someone for a few dollars. This subtle interplay between these two opposites was the most fascinating of the whole movie. Magisterial acted by both. The realization that slowly grows to Gordon that he may have took the wrong decision. Howard is someone who is straightforward and clearly takes matters in hand to finalize it. There's a key moment in a restaurant where I thought the film was going to escalate into a spiral of violence. But to my surprise it remained to that single moment and the impact was limited to the fact that Gordon was more uncertain and scared to dead of Howard. Mulkey is brilliant as the crazy killer. Top performance.


But as I mentioned earlier, these superb performances can't cover up that the essential substance of this film is kind of feeble. A succession of obvious events and a simple story with no undue risks taken. Domestic violence is usually a complex psychological story. In "The Living" this is elaborated rather simplistic. Even the injuries Molly had after the quarrel, didn't exactly look realistic (it was more a result of a makeup party that got out of hand). Thanks to the charismatic Mulkey, this film was worth to watch.

Haunt
2014
Mac Carter

“So you want to hear a ghost story?
Well, every ghost story begins with a house... and a tragedy.
And so we begin with mine.”

The beginning really feels creepy. The rest of the film looks typical. Just another haunted-house topic with a whole range of already used elements from similar films. For the real horror fanatics it's nothing new or surprising. Expect creaking doors, manifesting entities , scary sounds behind every door and in every corner, looming shadows and sudden scares. This film contains them all and therefore looks like a hodgepodge of already used ideas. Except for that impression-making start wherein an original device is proposed : an old-fashioned looking device composed of transistors and radio lamps that can be used to communicate with the deceased. The tormented and desperate person who wants to use it to get in touch with his children, soon will experience the consequences. They are less pleasant than he had expected.


The Asher family moves into an old house of which there are rumors that it's haunted. The Morello family who lived there previously, was decimated cruelly. The only survivor was the matriarch Janet Morello (Jacki Weaver) who shows up while the Ashers are moving in, saying that she forgot to take something with her. During her brief visit she talks to Evan (Harrison Gilbertson), the son of the family Asher, telling him that her son died when he was Evan's age and that the attic was his bedroom. The moment Evan meets the rebellious teenage girl Sam (Liana Liberato) during a nighttime walk, a close friendship grows in between them. Before he realizes it, Sam snuggles into his bed at night. After a while they start to experiment with the strange device that they found (the one you saw in the opening scene) in a side room in the attic (actually Sam knew it was there anyway). A dangerous game that opens the door for not so friendly ghosts.


Ghost stories with an old, possessed house as a central subject, is an eagerly used topic in the horror genre. Think of "The Conjuring", "The Woman in Black", "The Amityville Horror" or "Poltergeist" and you know what to expect. The old clichés aren't shunned. Everytime there's an appearance, lights start to flicker again (in the same way as you saw in "Deliver us from Evil") There's even an entity that looks as if it came straight out of the movie "The Ring". And events from the past are shown in a creepy way in black and white. Unfortunately there are also the ridiculous-looking clichés. Like the fact that the new family happens to have the same composition of family members as the previous unfortunate family. Despite terrifying apparitions and confrontations, everyone just continues as if this is the most normal thing in the world. Even worrying gibberish of the youngest daughter ("If there’s really a ghost in Evan's room, l think he should make friends with it.") doesn't bother anyone. And of course at that time the parents leave the entire household behind, so they can visit a few colleagues.


Despite the obvious events, apparitions and paranormal states, I was still a bit surprised by the final denouement. Visually and in terms of atmosphere they could have created a really eerie and creepy film. The ghost part isn't so bad because they are surely scary at times. But the storyline is certainly not that exciting. And the performances are pretty one-dimensional. Parents are more absent than present, the older daughter was totally unnecessary and the younger sister lived in her own world. Gilbertson and Liberato formed a sympathetic couple but Gilbertson's naivety is hugely irritating. I enjoy an old-fashioned ghost story once and a while. Such a film that gives you the chills at times. The only chills I got while watching "Haunt", were those of the cold because of an open window in the middle of the night.

Residue
2015
Alex Garcia Lopez

“Since the explosion, since the construction of the Quarantine Zone, my photographs are different.
We're different.
Is it despair?
Confusion?
Rage?
Fear?
Everything's changed.
Maybe forever.”

Not knowing what was waiting for me and whether it was worth to watch this alleged horror / mystery (the content seemed interesting to me though), this film visually impressed me afterwards. At the end credits, I was somewhat irritated because the ending made no sense at all and left me with a lot of question marks. Ultimately it was a huge open ending with everything still as mysterious and unexplained as in the beginning. Afterwards I found out that this was a pilot for a brand new television series. What a disappointment ! As a fervent opponent of anything that even resembles a serial, the further course of this nevertheless very intriguing story will be completely unknown to me. However, I am sure that by the third season everything will be very confusing and complicated, because the writers are completely lost and are forced to invent new storylines. That's nothing for me.


The whole story revolves around a massive explosion that occurred in an underground dancing somewhere in futuristic London. According to the government chemicals are released, which leads to evacuating part of the population and a perimeter is established around the disaster area. Jennifer (Natalia Tena) and Jonas (Iwan Rheon) witness this explosion and gradually see their part of the city mutate into an area with military control. Jennifer is a photographer who starts to make photos of local residents after the incident and who discovers that these individuals experience a personality change. They get suicidal and turn out to be downright murderous. Jonas is someone who works for the organization who have closed the area in question (all the buildings in this area are covered with plastic, which creates some surreal images) and gradually he becomes aware that there is more to it than an explosion. And finally there is also Levi (Jamie Draven), a police detective whose daughter died in this explosion.


"Residue" is a fairly depressing film. Not only because of the futuristic story, but also because of the atmosphere and the used color palette. Everything looks bleak, gray and with no future. In retrospect I understood why the film was so slow without really shocking or relevant incidents. That's of course because this is just a long intro to a multiple seasons full of episodes. Only the artistic image fragments are momentary attention grabbers. For the most part it's just observing the main characters wandering around and looking for answers to their questions. After that there's something paranormal coming up. This makes it a little more interesting. So, are you a TV show freak, then I think this one is worth to watch. Instead, I'll stick with my addiction to caffeine and nicotine ... and I'll still eschew the "soapine" for the moment!

Big Game
2014
Jalmari Helander

"Not political, not religious. He is just a certified grade-A psychopath."

I thought "Why the hell not ?" after seeing the poster of "Big Game". An adventure film, clearly aimed at a younger audience, with Air Force One crashing down somewhere in a Finnish forest and with the US president trying to saving himself with the help of a Finnish boy who just happens to undergo a local ritual so he can prove himself to the male population. And after I saw that Samuel L. Jackson also took part in this movie as the missing president, I didn't hesitate for a second. It's true that Jackson played some minor roles before this ("Oldboy", "Reasonable Doubt" and "Robocop"), yet I was pleasantly surprised by his last performance in "Kingsman: The secret service". So I went on the assumption that this was going to be a likeable youth film, full of unabashed and not too far-fetched action.


Boy oh boy. I didn't expect this to be such a crappy movie full of improbabilities, ridiculous situations and coincidences. Admittedly, it's indeed aiming for a younger audience, filled with teenage boys, who can have nice dreams that same night after watching such a film and imagine themselves acting as such a hero. But I'm convinced that most of them will shake their heads out of disapproval, while wondering if the makers of this film actually were convinced that they are really so naive.


First lets start with the positive aspects. The scenery is matchless and breathtaking beautiful. I had no idea that Finland looked like that and I was tempted immediately to choose this country as a destination for my next holiday. Onni Tommila, a youthful Finnish actor, performed properly and does his job as the Finnish guide Oskari remarkably well. The entire film is clearly a homage to earlier films with youthful heroism as a central theme. It's a kind of film like "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" in which Short Round plays a prominent role or a typical Spielberg film like "Empire of the Sun". It brings back the nostalgia of fathers going to the cinema with their son to enjoy a cool film for guys. A prerequisite for such films is that the youthful contribution should smoothly transcend the ingenuity of the adults. In other words, the adults are presented as utter fools.


What bothered me the most about this movie, were the totally absurd situations that arose. I admit, when you look at it from the perspective of a young person and you don't take it too serious, it comes across as an entertaining movie. A sort of "Home Alone" in a forest, where you're always a bit smarter and faster than the bad guys. But there are limits. Firstly I would like to purchase the brand of freezer they used here, because I think this hightech-wonder-equipment is indestructible. Swinging under a helicopter, mowing through the woods, tumbling from a mountain, splashing into a lake and afterwards popping up out of the water like a purebred Russian submarine. And this "undamaged" ! Now that's what I call solid quality. But beware ! Make sure you don't end up inside this miracle appliance, because apparently it can't be opened from the inside. The number of accidental meetings is huge. Coincidentally, the probe with the POTUS is landing where Oskari made his camp. The freezer pops out of the water where Air Force One incidentally crashed. And you just need to follow a suspicious helicopter on satelite, and you end up looking at POTUS. The criminal Hazar (Mehmet Kurtulus) apparently isn't such a hot-shot criminal afterall, because he doesn't even know how to load an automatic rifle. And the way the satellite images are used in the Pentagon to follow the president, is just hilarious.


I admit, It shouldn't always be that serious and occasionally a lightly youth film is also welcome, but there are limits to follies and ridiculous situations. As a boy I'd fall for this blindly. But as an adult, who started watching this film unprepared, it gradually began to annoy me more and more because of the series of stupidities. The final image full of patriotism and heroism ultimately, was a bit too much for me.

You gotta cock it, Motherf …. Oops.

Final Girl
2015
Tyler Shields

“Are you guys an a cappella group?
Something like that.
Naw, we don't sing together.
You should. “

After reading the content of "Final Girl", you would expect a "I spit on your grave" -stylish revenge film in which a young woman teaches a group of young teens, who developed a rather morbid hobby during the weekends, a lesson. In hindsight, you can say it's at least disappointing. The reprisals are quite soft, lacking any kind of excitement. The whole movie sometimes has a cartoonish 60's look with some absurd scenes which sometimes even reminded me of "A Clockwork Orange" (not in terms of story but pure when it's about the mood).


I surely would recommend anyone to give this movie a chance, just because of the presence of Abigail Breslin. What a ravishing appearance, this young lady. A natural beauty provided with a fragile appearance and a pale face of an angel. You wouldn't immediately think that she's a trained killing machine without conscience. And that's also my first remark. She wasn't really convincing as such. She didn't seem to be really invincible during the confrontations. It's an excellent actress beyond dispute. I saw her the first time in "Wicked blood" and I was pleasantly surprised. She made me think of Saoirse Ronan at that moment. The same innocent look, determination and overwhelming calmness. However, I am convinced that Ronan would perhaps have been a better choice here. Not that there's anything wrong with the acting of Breslin. She demonstrates that also in "Maggie" afterwards (also with a pale face of an angel. But in "Maggie" there's another cause).


The biggest advantage of this film is the short playing time. I guess this is caused by the simple story. In only 15 minutes you'll get the full story already served. First, the brief conversation that the mysterious Wes Bentley has with the very young Veronica where he tells her that her parents are no longer alive and that he wants to train her to perform special tasks. Then we see something that should resemble a brief overview of that education. And finally the gang of tastefully dressed guys who lure an innocent blonde. Actually, this is the whole story in a nutshell and how it'll continue is rather obvious and predictable.


If it was the intention to make a stylistic slasher out of it, the creators of this film certainly succeeded in that. Some pieces look as if you're watching some dramatic play. Are you expecting a slasher like "You're next" then I recommend you watch that one instead, because the ultimate retaliations are quite austere and bloodless. Even avid supporters of "The Sound of Music" can watch this film without risking to faint. And the lack of background information isn't exactly a plus. A bit of explanation about the mysterious death of Veronica's parents, the origin of the unknown teacher and the reason for the bizarre behavior of the four teenagers, would have been a useful contribution.


Besides the outstanding performances of Breslin and Bentley (and Logan Huffman as the pretty crazy looking figure Danny) this was still a mediocre movie. Even "Little Red Riding Hood" is more frightening than this retro story. However, the premise was interesting (but certainly not innovative) enough to make something exciting out of it. And what totally bugged me, were the piercing light beams used in the woods. It made for some impressive images with shadow play, but after a while it was as annoying as a mosquito in your bedroom on a balmy summer evening. I'm filing this one without delay under the heading "Missed opportunities".

Suite Francaise
2014
Saul Dibb

"This German is our enemy. Do you understand?
Yes. Madame."

Occasionally my lovely, sweet wife (yep, she regularly reads my reviews) gets the privilege to choose a movie. Usually this is accompanied by a blistering reproach that I always get it my way. I always think of her when choosing a movie and usually it's an acceptable one. She tends to forget that. I usually look those gore and scarier flicks in the middle of the night on my own, so I'm saved from a wife who awakes in a panic while planting her sharp nails into my shoulders. Hence I braced myself for a romantic war drama and expected it to be a wilted station novel. Ultimately, it wasn't so bad. The romantic rumble was limited and there was more attention for the mutual relations between the richer and poorer population in the village of Bussy and the vicissitudes of a fugitive, crippled farmer.


Besides, I must admit that I have a weak spot for WWII movies. I readily admit that those were the dark pages in the history of Europe, but those developments in these years were a fertile ground for a whole range of excellent war films. The fact that Matthias Schoenaerts also succeeded in getting the leading role here, was another reason for me to give this movie a chance. Let's say chauvinism raised its head and as a Belgian I'm proud to see how this fellow countryman has worked his way into the club of the better international actors (sorry Muscles from Brussels, but you just didn't get in that club)


Surprisingly, I didn't suffer from aching jaws because of the complete absence of yawning. There's of course the forbidden love between Lucille (Michelle Williams), the daughter of the strict and cold landowner Madame Angellier (beautiful played by Kristin Scott Thomas) on the one hand and officer Bruno von Falk (Schoenaerts), a German officer who has been assigned a place to sleep at the manor of the latter two ladies, on the other. Eventually, this forbidden love remains slumbering a bit on the background and isn't imaged explicitely. But their like-minded love for music comes more to the fore. The additional storylines made it more interesting. The other arrogant German officer who sees himself as an Übermensch and treats the locals disrespectful, the callous mother in law who appears to be a resistance fighter in the making, the mayor and his wife (two genuine asskissers) trying to get in good graces with the occupiers but face the consequences afterwards and the resistance of a peasant against the oppressors.


All this is beautifully illustrated and featured with the usual scenes of war (a nosedive of German fighter-bombers against innocent refugees is included of course), which makes it an interesting war drama. But afterwards I didn't think it was that innovative, so to speak. It's the superb performances which nevertheless left a deep impression. The clichéd plot twists are not shunned, and what remains is a conservative adaptation of a manuscript left by a real war victim, Irène Némirovsky.

Stung
2015
Benni Diez

Oh, God, help him! I think something bit him!
You're a doctor! Help him!
I'm a gynecologist for Christ's sake!

I had a good feeling about this movie and the last old-fashioned giant insects film I'd seen was "Big Ass Spider". A movie with considerably oversized vermin who marched along and wreak havoc among the present crowd . The combination of horror, comedy and romance caused already a bit of distrust. Ultimately, this film hit the ball wrong when it comes to the first two genres. And the last genre felt a little forced. It wasn't really comical at all. And scary or exciting it was nowhere so to speak. I was expecting a sort of B-movie with no impressive CGI, but it was in fact actually pretty disappointing.


We meet Paul (Matt O'Leary) and Julia (Jessica Cook), a bunch of friends / colleagues (not really clear) on their way to a garden party organized by a certain Mrs. Perch for her deceased husband. The two take care of the catering. Soon this pleasant party is thoroughly disturbed by giant wasps / hornets / bees (I have no idea what kind it was, but they all sting I guess) that obtained their proportions because a mixture of growth hormones and fertilizer ended up in the ground, right into a wasp / hornet / bees nest.


Firstly I must admit that you don't need to wait that long before the **** hits the fan. Before you know it, it's all slime and blood that splashes around. Guests struggling on the ground with foam on their lips after which giant insect start to burst out of them. Just as in "Big Ass Spider" the insects look realistic when they're still of a normal size. But the moment they get those unreal proportions, it looks as if they came straight out of a "Dr. Who" episode from the 70's. Especially the scene at the end looks extremely awful. Even the phenomenon that appeared at one time on the sons shoulder, and reminded me of "Total Recall" from 1990 where someone had an ugly little man growing on his belly, looked really outdated. But admittedly, the amount of gore was huge and at times highly entertaining.


Yet there was much that bothered me. The transformations that occurred after someone was stabbed, was startling fast (but this guaranteed the fast pace in this movie). The romantic part felt really out of place. If I was in this situation, then this was really the last thing I'd be worried about. The way Paul developed from an unreliable catering assistant into an outright hero, isn't that original either. And the way it ends up in the ambulance was probably a metaphorical reference to the movie title. I just didn't know why that would be humorous (just like I didn't get the joke about the bees), but maybe I have a wrong sense of humor.



All in all a simple, short story with some flaws, with especially a failed presentation of the annoying insects and a lack of humor and tension. I will still consume a sugary drink on a terrace without running away in panic at the sight of some curious wasps.

Insurgent
2015
Robert Schwentke

“Divergent 100%.
I'll be damned.
What?
She's what we've been looking for.”

I really start hating those damn different film versions of children's books. They are always spread over several films so you always have to wait a year before you can see the sequel. Similarly this sequel to "Divergent". I could still partially remember what it was about, but the first 15 minutes I was actually systematically trying to reconstruct the previous film. It would be best to watch the previous movie once again before you start a sequel. But then again this happens never due to the lack of time. And then, to know that the last part of the sequel is again divided into two films, and that for the obvious reasons. Let's hope that my biggest fear won't come true, namely that we'll be overwhelmed by serial-like movies in the future.


Logically one makes a comparison with the similar series of films of "The Hunger Games". The first part of the latter was clearly way better than "Divergent". But "Insurgent" surpasses again the second part of "The Hunger Games" . I thought the latter was a faint duplicate of the first part. I had the tendency to check all the time to see if I hadn't started the wrong movie. "Insurgent" continues where the first part left off (quite logical, no?). It doesn't waste any time and soon it plunges itself into a series of thrilling action sequences. Tris (Shailene Woodley), Four (Theo James), Caleb (Ansel Elgort) and Peter (Miles Teller, who made a greater impression on me in "Whiplash"), the least reliable gland of the group, were separated from the rest of Dauntless. This faction had to flee after Jeanine (Kate Winslet) started a coup during which she wanted to eradicate "divergents" (for those who didn't know, Tris is Divergent which allegedly means she could belong to any faction) because they constitute a threat for the peaceful society as it exists now. Meanwhile Jeanine's troops have found a mysterious device with all symbols of all factions printed on it. Seemingly it contains a message from the founders of the city and can only be opened by someone who can undergo all the simulations without dying. Guess twice who the lucky volunteer will be!


Last year I said to myself not to watch the next parts of this series because it was so predictable and because of the teenage girl content. Well, you can see I gave in but no regrets this time. Yet only a few remarks. The uncomplicated way Tris could create such a trendy, modern styled haircut without a mirror and with a primitive-looking scissors (looks like an illustration from a glossy magazine which you can find on the table at your local hairdresser), even stunned my wife with a marveled reaction as a result. This will be the new hair style this summer, I guess. Then it occurred to me again that nobody can get on or off a train in a typical manner. And then there is the thrilling fact that seemingly without much effort (they are massively sought and still they can stroll around everywhere calmly) they are being overpowered, after which suddenly they are again liberated. And then of course the obligatory lovescenes are present as well.


But otherwise, this film is filled with action and the CGI is at times unprecedented that'll take your breath away. Especially the simulations looked amazing and detailed (especially the house floating through the air). The fact that you didn't know whether it was real or a simulated situation became a bit monotonous. But the film went on at a furious pace so you won't be bored for a minute. It's a certainty that I'll be watching the last part as well although I'll probably be pissed because of them making 2 films out of it. The end result will surely be two quite largely stretched-out parts.

Maggie
2015
Henry Hobson

“I made a promise to your mother,that I would protect you.
Yeah, but...what about you guys?
What if I hurt you?
Don't worry.Caroline and I, we know the precautions.”


Schwarzenegger performing in a horror that eventually turns into a drama. It's not what you expect from this action film icon. Strange but true, the one-liner "I'll be back" is even being recycled, but it's not said by Arnold this time. One fact is certain, Schwarzenegger will not go down in history as the actor who's suitable for a character part, but I must admit that the effort he did here, produced an admirable final result. After acting as a barbarian, a cyborg returning from the future, a clumsy kindergarten teacher and a pregnant guy, he acquitted himself in a proper way of his role as a concerned father who takes his infected daughter back home, so that she's not being quarantined at the moment she transforms into a bloodthirsty zombie.


Once again a virus is the cause that the number of ardent vegetarians among the US population drastically shrinks and slowly but surely turn into zombies, better known as "necro-ambulist". Wade (Schwarzenegger) is an older farmer, who's looking since a few weeks for his daughter Maggie (Abigail Breslin). When he finally finds her, she turns out to be infected after being bitten by such a barbecue fanatic. Wade is determined to take care of her at home. This is allowed because it takes a few weeks before a victim effectively makes the "turn" before going into a zombie-status. At that moment the verdict is that she needs to be quarantined. Ultimately that means that the authorities let the infected citizens huddle together (regardless what the degree of infection is) so the problem is solved by itself (through self-consumption so to speak).



I like a zombie movie now and then. Both the straightforward version, where there is excessive use of gore and bloody scenes with massive amounts of human remains that needs to be devoured and juicy brains, as the versions that differs slightly from the horror genre being created by Romero. "Dead within" is such a movie where the emphasis isn't on the living-dead creatures. And "Warm bodies" you can call the rom-com zombie movie par excellence. Also in "Maggie" you shouldn't expect apocalyptic images full of bloody zombies. Those images are restricted to two confrontations and a few flashbacks. The only horrifying is the slow change Maggie undergoes and a moment of self-mutilation. The final decision Wade has to make is his most daunting moment.


Maybe that's the only thing I could criticize. Schwarzenegger actually doesn't do anything special throughout the whole film, except mulling over the choice he has to make at the moment he starts to smell like a well-cooked bratwurst according to Maggie. Or putting his daughter in quarantine. Or administering a painful drug cocktail. Or the radical solution. You can see him pondering about it throughout the movie. His weathered, bearded face speaks volumes. But he does that with sincerity and conviction. The most memorable moment was when Maggie spent a night with some friends somewhere in a field completely with sulfur sticks and a somewhat inconvenient conversation that arose. A touching reunion where everyone pretended that everything was normal, but at the same time they all realized that this would probably be the last time they could enjoy each other's company. And of course the final scene that reminded me immediately of "World War Z".


It's obvious that the emphasis in this film is on the father-daughter relationship. Schwarzenegger and Breslin demand therefore the most attention and displace the supporting cast completely to the background. The following would sound a little trite: "Arnold plays a role in such a way you're not used of him." But in the end I could only conclude that it was just like that. He'd better skipped all previous performances (especially "Sabotage"). So I was clearly pleasantly surprised. About Breslin I can only say that this is a wonderful actress and a future star on the Hollywood firmament. Despite the limited dialogues, this was a brilliant acting performance in which she shows in a subtle way that she's aware of her approaching end. But her being a rising star, was something I already noticed in "Wicked blood" and recently in "Final Girl" (although this wasn't such a great flick). I didn't know she also played a part in "The Call". And another little fact: Schwarzenegger's name in "Escape Plan" was Ray Breslin. What a coincidence !



Conclusion: I'm sure the hardcore zombie fans will say that this is an abominable bad movie because of the total lack of gore and bloody scenes. However, I was impressed and felt that this film put the concept of a zombie movie into a very different light. The loving relationship between father and daughter is the central theme and it even tends to get melodramatic at a given time. And this in a horror film ?

Wild Card
2015
Simon West

“Well, I've been knocked down, blown up, lied to, **** on, and shot at.
So nothing surprises me much anymore, except the things that people do to each other. I'm a licensed pilot, took karate in Tokyo.I lectured on economics at Yale.I can memorize the front pages of the New York Times in five minutes and repeat it back to you in five weeks.I was the National Golden Gloves champion three years in a row.
I'm fluent in four languages and can wrestle with a menu in five more.

Jesus!
Don't interrupt me. There's more.
More ?
Yeah. I lie a lot. “

A film with Statham always guarantees a few solid brawls that usually end up pretty painful for his opponents. In the meantime he's commenting on everything with his juicy dialect. After testing his dramatic skills in the engaging film "Hummingbird" and getting his act together again in "Homefront" after the reasonable disappointing films "Parker" and "Safe", he is now back with a straightforward hardcore action movie. Unfortunately, the action scenes can be counted on the fingers of one hand.


Nick Wild (Jason Statham) is a kind of bodyguard offering his services to wealthy gamblers as they are trying their luck at the gaming tables in the casinos of Las Vegas. And on the side he also takes some small jobs like for instance acting as a punchbag for losers who want to impress their girlfriend. A woman called Holly (Dominik Garcia-Londo) asks for help one day because she's treated in a rather bad by a local tough guy. And there's also a very young multi millionaire asking for protection. Those are the two central themes of this film, together with the simple fact that Nick also has some personal problems notably a drinking and gambling problem.


The first storyline with tough guy Danny (Milo Ventimiglia) is responsible for the brutal part of the film. Not very original and on several occasions this was used in other revenge movies. The villain mistreats someone. The "good guy" mediates. The end result is a series of fights. And those fights are fierce with Statham defending himself with anything he can get his hands on. Highly original action moments which are very painful for his opponents. The moment I start handing out pseudo punches myself, means to me that the action is entertaining enough. You can expect Statham going nuts again and kicking some ass.


The second story is the more serious part in which the weaknesses of Nick Wild take centre stage. His drinking and gambling is what keeps him in Las Vegas. His reputation in this dissolute city and the company of bar girls and croupiers won't stop him from dreaming about a more exotic place. This is represented in the form of an idyllic spot with a boat. His ultimate plan is therefore to save up enough money to clear off and leave all that misery behind him.


My final conclusion is a bit split after watching this popcorn movie. You can't call it a real action movie because they are a bit too skimpy. And the serious drama isn't developed in such a way that you are impressed by it. Statham is simply Statham as we know him from all his films. That's a fact that Statham fans can be certain of. And besides Stanley Tucci (who remains engraved in my memory as the strict airport manager in "The Terminal") as the comic casino boss Baby and the very limited contribution of Jason "Seinfeld" Alexander as Pinky, a lawyer joining the same office as Nick, there are further no other significant roles. For me this average movie could be turned into an abbreviated version with all the action fragments assembled in succession.

I-Lived
2015
Franck Khalfoun

The concept of this film seemed interesting to me and relevant enough when looking at today's modern society. A restyling of the old Faust story, as it were. A modern appearance with a raised, pedantic finger at the way some experience their social life nowadays. Unfortunately, it really wasn't creepy enough to call it a horror. The images shown weren't demonic, but the subtle underlying message was. It's not that we are signing a pact with the devil when we create a Facebook account or a Twitter account. Or when you install an app on your smartphone that tells you when it's time to get some calories or finally have a decent meal, and periodically warns you when it's time to go to the bathroom. But some individuals their lives are so controlled by these social media, that it looks as if they really signed something.


Similarly Josh Fosse (Jeremiah Watkins). A nerdy twenty something whose girlfriend left him for a probably more social type of guy and who's not able to pay his bills due to the lack of a decent job. The only thing he spends his time with is chasing away or hiding for the landlady and maintaining a video blog where he tests new apps and gives it a score. Until one day he discovers the I-Lived app and uploads it to his smartphone. It's a simple app that asks for your wishes and after you've completed certain tasks, these wishes will also be fulfilled. Well, you don't have to be an Einstein to know where this is going.


The beginning of this film was quite pubertal and sometimes even annoying. First you have to undergo a series of these video messages. Apparantly Watkins is a pretty notorious comedian. He was already the funniest at home while walking around in diapers they say. But to be honest I didn't think it was that hilarious after all. Even a laugh track wouldn't have helped. Until the moment I-Lived (And for those who haven't figured it out yet : try reading the film title backwards) starts defining his life. Then there are some hilarious moments. They look rather slapstick-like but they are still funny enough to give this film a second chance. But by the time it all gets a bit darker and Josh starts realizing there are sinister forces at work, it's all a little too predictable plus boring and it's certainly not creepy.


Anyway, I thought the part about the User Agreement was cleverly thought up. Who reads those legal gibberish anyway before installing some software? Without a doubt hardly anyone. This was for sure an admonishing message. But beyond this subtlety it was widely annoyance being demonstrated with clockwork regularity. The first thing that struck me was the fact that most people knew their way there very well. Or perhaps nobody else is driving around there on the streets. Because you should take a close look at how long Josh's friend and girlfriend aren't paying attention while driving. I thought that was terrifyingly long. Then the app-reviews, which are presented all the time in a kind of YouTube manner, started to nerve me severely. The content was quite alright, but the recurring gimmicks in these videos were a bit too much. And at last the ultimate task that Josh must perform, wasn't that convincing and thought provoking. It 's not as sinister or insane as in "13 Sins" for example. Josh Fosse isn't really an acting miracle but fortunately all other actors their performances were of a questionable level, so in the end Josh's acting stood out in a way. Fortunately for him. The only sublime part in the whole movie was the connection between the first fragment and the last fragment. Unfortunately, the rest of the film wasn't as radical as the end.

Rob the Mob
2014
Raymond de Felitta

“Kid, you know where the **** you are?
Yeah, I'm at 140 Union Avenue.
I got the address right, right?
Yeah, that's it. That's the address.”

What a terrific movie. A film I've watched in amazement and where I was wondering all the time how for God's sake it could be possible that this has occurred in reality in New York in the 90s. Don't expect to see a gangster epos or something as similar as "The Godfather", simply because it's about the mafia. It's rather amusing at times, it's honest and it's, strange but true, extremely funny in a goofy way. I laughed out loud several times about the madcap situations Tommy and Rosie found themselves in (the first hold-up cracked me up).


This sympathetic, but not so clever and very naive, couple ensured that the Italian mafia didn't know what to do when someone suddenly started holding up clubs where members of the mafia gathered. First you see Tommy and Rosie as real crack addicts, committing a robbery at a florist. After their imprisonment (and apparently sobered) they decided to stay on the straight path and started to work for a collection agency that's run by someone who wasn't afraid to do illegal stuff himself in the past and who practised the motto that everyone deserves a second chance in life. Until Tommy and Rosie realize that they are underpaid and supporting themselves will become very difficult. That's when Tommy comes up with the insane idea to rob the mafia. During the trial of mobster John Gotti, he diligently wrote down addresses of those famous clubs. And one additional benefit is that weapons are out of the question there ("Guns and wiseguys is a bad mix"). The idea to rob them is indeed brilliant because nobody gives a damn about that. Not the public opinion and certainly not the authorities. And the last thing the mafia will do is to contact the police to file a complaint against some unknown persons.


"Rob the Mob" is not a mafia movie par excellence with liquidations and bloody reprisals, opponents that are buried in concrete somewhere or an omertà being broken. Ultimately, the role of the mafia in this film is reduced to that of a bunch of retired veterans, only left with their reputation and subsequently two young people make them look foolish. The whole focus is on this touchingly couple in love. The way Michael Pitt and Nina Arianda give shape to these characters, is simply magnificent. Tommy is the gullibility itself and you can see him evolve from clumsy to recklessly. His motivation for these actions is fueled by what this intimidating gang did wrong to his father in the past (which is seen frequently during flashbacks). Rosie is a lovely girl that follows Tommy without hesitation in this reckless adventure. She looks so disarmingly innocent with an engaging big laugh that camouflages her intellectual deficiencies. Arianda's acting is fascinating. The two main characters complement each other perfectly and act very natural. Pitt apparently has a sense for quality films. I saw him shine in the movie "I Origins", which I thought was also an impressive film.


Besides the two main characters, a series of famous film stars appear in it, giving it the right atmosphere. There's Andy Garcia (Terry Benedict in Ocean's Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen) as the illustrious godfather "Big Al" from the Vazallo family. Complete with an impressive gray beard which makes him look more like a grandfather enjoying his old age. Ray "Everybody loves Raymond" Romano shows up as the columnist who plunges into the improbable story of "Bonnie and Clyde" after Rosie called him, to his surprise, to point out there's a flaw in his previous article. Griffin Dune plays the amusing role of Dave Lovell, the enthusiastic owner of the collection agency (delightful part). And the mafia members all played in some mafia-related film in the past. Michael "The Sopranos" Rispoli, Yul "American Gangster" Vazquez, Burt "Once upon a time in America" ​​Young (a 75-year-old bloke that can still throw in a solid punch), Joseph "The Sopranos" Gannascoli, John "Mob Queen" Tormey, Garry "The Sopranos" Pastore, Santo "The Sopranos" Fazio, Vincent "The Family" Riviezzo. They all ensured that the authentic feeling of an Italian mafia-family is convincing. I only missed a collective feast while all eating a homemade spaghetti with meatballs in tomato sauce made by an authentic Italian mama.


This surely is a must-see movie if you like a casual and clownish film. After "The Godfather" episodes there still have been successful and less successful attempts to portray organized crime. The best description I read found on the website "The Playlist": "De Felitta takes a true story that occurred in the early '90s, adds two energized leads, a pinch of bearded Andy Garcia and a screenplay that goes down like cold ice-tea on a hot summer day to cook up a nice little homage to the good ol' days.". But for those who know the real story of Thomas and Rosemarie Uva, it certainly won't be a surprising ending.

Lucy
2014
Luc Besson

Predestination
2014
The Spierig Brothers


“What if I could put him in front of you, the man that ruined your life. If I could guarantee that you’d get away with it. Would you kill him ?”

Sigh! Where are those good old days you could enjoy a movie about time traveling like "Back to the future","The Terminator","Timecop" or recently "Looper" while lying relaxed in your seat without craving for a glass of aspirin as the film progresses ? The principle of paradoxes known to time traveling is cited in these films (like Michael J. Fox becoming blurry and the threat of disappearing because of his parents growing apart), but isn't of primary importance for the entire motion picture. "Predestination" is something completely different and is put together pretty damn clever and shrewd. But I assure you, the numerous plot twists and interwoven time loops will make you completely dizzy. The film is a hard nut to crack and requires tremendous concentration. It's a film where you go from one surprise to the next. It's similar to the "chicken and egg" conundrum. At one moment you are very sure that the egg came first, but new developments and revelations make you doubt this fact again and you'll revise your conclusion.


The film is based on the short story "All you Zombies" from A.Heinlein and tells the story of a "Temporal Agent" (Ethan Hawke) who, using an ingenious violin case, can travel back and forth again through time in order to prevent crimes . Especially that of the mysterious "Fizzle Bomber" who's responsible for a destructive bomb attack in the 70's in New York killing about 11,000 people. In a bar the agent, who is employed as a bartender, listens to the story of a certain John, who looks like a kind of Brian Molko from the 70's. What comes next are some bizarre drawn out story lines which, as the film slowly proceeds, merge into one point to ensure an obvious highlight. I'm not going further into details because this would only reveal the intricate puzzle. Unfortunately the final denouement only evokes a "Ah that's how it is" reaction. Eventually it's just a quirky fictional story with an identity crisis as central topic. However I think that the level of difficulty of this film will be a bit of an obstacle for most spectators.


"Predestination" is a masterpiece on a different level. The created atmosphere and especially the performances are eye-catching. The 70's are beautifully portrayed. The zeitgeist of that time with its authentic locations, fashion and music. But mostly, the performances by Ethan Hawke and for me the so far completely unknown Australian Sarah Snook made this film worth viewing. Ethan Hawke once again played a convincing role after his less memorable performances in "Getaway" and "The Purge". Not an easy part, but again one that suits him. Sarah Snook, however, is the one who steals the show and plays a fairly special role. Personally I found the reasonable long scene with those two characters in the bar, where Snook told her life story, preternaturally gorgeous. A fascinating story with delightful pieces of conversations and highly entertaining. It also takes over half of the film to complete and is the foundation that bears the whole story. After this, things start to unravel.


If there's a movie for which the concept "Mind f¨ck" was invented, then it should be this one. A fascinating story. But it would be handy if they wrote a manual for it. Don't be daunted by the slow and stretched first part. It's there that the identity crisis of John is decomposed with surgical precision. The second part is dominated by the time travels and the resulting paradoxes. And then you'll understand the usefulness of the extended first part where all the pieces are manufactured, so they can be fitted into each other very subtle. Somewhere they gave it the name-tag a "retro-futuristic thriller" with also a bit of romance and humor. A film which is difficult to grasp, but definitely worthwhile. And now I have a reason to watch "Jessabelle". Sarah Snook, a name to keep your eye on.

The Maze Runner
2014
Wes Ball


Thomas: "We get out now or we die trying."
Minho: "You don't get it. We're already dead."

"The Maze Runner" is just like its predecessors "Twilight", "Divergent","The Giver" and "The Hunger Games" an adaptation of a book. The same ingredients are present as in the above-mentioned films : a post-apocalyptic world where young people play a key role. A world where society is organized in a new democratic or non-democratic way. In "The Giver" human feelings were suppressed in order to ensure a peaceful existence and people are divided into so-called "factions". In "The Hunger Games" there are districts with the Capitol as an overarching body that organizes the Hunger Games annually. Also in "Snowpiercer" we see an example of a dystopian world with a particular social classification in a speeding train. The second ingredient that can't be missed is a revolution against the established values and laws. Obviously, this is again a youthful person with a charismatic personality who has certain talents and who becomes the savior.


Calling this a pubertal display that tries to take advantage of the huge success of "The Hunger Games" for me personally is greatly exaggerated. What the hell is wrong with the fact that a group of young people are trapped in a hopeless situation already for years and established a commune with its own laws and rituals. Isn't it a bit like "Oliver Twist" in Charles Dickens's story, who tries to survive in a miserable orphanage? And the group of young people who end up trying to solve the problem resemble enormously the group of friends from "The Goonies". Everybody loves that movie, not ? The sympathetic chubby Chuck reminded me immediately of Chunk ! Granted, it's not very original, and all they are trying is to taste a bit of the success that has this type of movies has with the young moviegoers. But intuitively "The Maze Runner" was for me a of whole new level.


It's a highly entertaining film that captivates from the first minute. What I appreciate the most, is the fact that there isn't too much time wasted on extensive digressions and you are catapulted right into the middle of the story. An elevator takes Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) with high speed up to "The Glade", where he's being welcomed by a group of youngsters who live there already for several years and who can't remember anything except their first name. It's a wooded glade and everyone got assigned a certain task. The glade is surrounded by an immense labyrinth of which the layout changes at certain times and apparently there is no way to escape out of it. Some of the boys got the status of "Runner". They leave at the crack of dawn and explore the maze. They try to chart the maze and seek for a possible escape-route.


The final story isn't that impressive and looks quite simple : put some young people at the center of a maze from which they can't escape and afterwards you add a rebellious adventurer who couldn't care less about the imposed laws and wants to do everything possible to escape. That's about it in a nutshell. But it's the way in which the maze is shown that deserves an applause. A mechanical maze that adapts itself at certain times and where at night terrifying monsters (called Grievers. A kind of spider-like robots) wander around. The constant threat of the maze, the unknown and the creepy night sounds provide for an atmosphere full of suspense. The rapid pace of the movie makes sure you won't be bored for a second. And the special effects look usually impressive. I was only familiar with Will Poulter (goofy Kenny from "We're the Millers") and Thomas Brodie-Sangster ("The Last Legion"). The rest of the cast are relatively unknown young actors (and one actress). Usually there's always one person that mostly starts to annoy me, but this time I thought they all were acting properly. What surprised me the most was the fact that the introduction of Teresa (Kaya Scodelario) didn't led to yet another teenage love affair as in the other similar movies (But I'm sure this will be a fact in the sequels).


In my opinion an exciting and successful teen adventure with a few shortcomings. First, I don't think that those who read the book will think it's so overwhelming. Probably it won't meet the expectations and there will be things that are left out or shown in a different way. And knowing the end of the film will surely ruin the fun. Lucky me though, "again" I didn't read the book. Secondly, I found it pretty idiotic that the group of youngsters were able to build a tower to get an overview of the maze, but not one of them was clever enough to build it next to the wall. And third the ending was quite abruptly. That this is a transition to the logical sequels of this film is obvious. Hopefully they'll be of the same level as this one and not like "The Hunger Games" of which the second part really looked like a duplicate of the first. And fourth, I find it a bit sad for the firstlings who spent three years searching the exit and the newcomer solves the puzzle in a few days. Although I'm not a proponent of sequels or prequels and I hate it that movies tend to inherit the characteristics of a boring and tedious TV series, I'm enormously looking forward to the second part. Jeeeezzzz, I'm amazed about myself !

The Prince
2014
Brian A. Miller

Long time ago it was customary to offer Bruce Willis a leading role, because it was guaranteed that he would carry the whole movie and determine the success of the respective movies. He was also demonstratively placed centrally on a movie poster or video/DVD box, where he could look you right into the eyes in a penetrating way. A look with determination and one that shouted "Die Hard" slogans like "This movie is MINE. I own this movie. I'm the ruler in this movie, yippiekayee Motherf*cker ... ". You couldn't resist it. You just had to see this movie in which Bruce "The Invincible" ruled.


But those days are long gone. Willis has been degraded to a prop, a necessary evil and a meaningless ancillary character. He's still in the foreground of the movie poster like yesteryear, but compared to his overall contribution and the importance of his part, this can be easily reduced to a tiny photo, so you can hear surprised cries when moviegoers look at the poster "Hey isn't that Bruce Willis there on that tiny picture in the corner? ". Sadly, the last performances of Bruce Willis were as impressive as that of the Christmas tree in "Home Alone" or the snowman Olaf in "Frozen". It was kind of necessary but not decisive for the success of the film (although I give Olaf more credit on second thought). Look at "The Cold Light of Day", "Fire with Fire" and "Red 2" and you see him as a prop that is commercially exploited and who tries a new revival of the past glory as John McClane. "A Good Day to Die Hard" was just a mockery compared to the first "Die Hard" movies. A steel pin right through my heart. As a true "Die Hard" fan it was too sad for words.


Luckily, he's accompanied by another Hollywood star who has more downs than ups, namely John Cusack. Despite the monstrosities "2012", "The Numbers Station" and "Grand Piano", he manages to keep his reputation high due to participating in "The Raven", "The Frozen Ground" and "The Butler". Sadly enough his contribution to "The Prince" is also meaningless and minimal. I will always relate Cussack to "Serendipity", how crazy that may sound ! His role in "The Prince" is merely limited to explaining the whole situation. That's it.


Jason Patric and Jessica Lowndes are the ones who steal the show in this film. But only till halfway, because from then on the show became tedious and boring. Paul is a retired criminal, who turned his back on the past and spends his days in a little town repairing cars. His illustrious past however brusquely reappears the day his beloved daughter (with a drug addiction) is abducted. It reminded me a little bit of Statham in "Homefront". I must confess that the first half of the movie was entertaining. Paul who leads a seemingly common life and who can convince the seductive and tasty-looking Angela to take him to New Orleans, turns out to be a tough and well trained fighter who can stand his ground. The sangfroid and coolness can be compared with that of Bruce Willis, who we can admire in the beginning and who seems to be nothing more than a crazed,frustrated crime baron seeking revenge. But as the film progresses, it reminds me more and more of the ancient fighting games I played on my C-64. You had to fight against various opponents throughout numerous levels. As one progresses it becomes more difficult to beat the opponent. And in the end you are confronted with the final boss. Same here !


Besides the fact that the whole story is fairly simplistic and boring, it's the fact that "The Prince" is nearly untouchable which makes it unrealistic,implausible and terribly irritating. Once again a film in which the opponents use a lot of ammunition without even hitting anything, and the protagonist walks around like a spirit while shooting the total opposition into smithereens with some well-aimed shots . There is nothing so satisfying as seeing some confident posers with a big mouth getting their ass kicked. But if that same person can dodge bullets in a superhuman way, the fun is over. And "His Royal coolness" Willis was convincing at the start, but the moment he started sniffing at Paul's daughter her hair like an old pervert, this feeling was immediately swept from the table. I'm afraid I'm going to avoid movies featuring Willis in the future, since it's only used to promote an inferior film and exploit it commercially. I miss that "Yippiekayee".

I had a little interest in Rob the Mob anyway, so your review convinced me to put it on my watchlist.

Keep up the good work!

Deliver us from Evil
2014
Scott Derrickson


Sarchie : I've met a lot of priests. You don't seem the type.
Mendoza : And I've known a lot of cops, and you're exactly the type.”

The most common topic in the horror genre is exorcism and everything that has to do with possessions. I admit that this is the closest match to everyday life because everyone has something he's excited and passionate about. It's like he or she is possessed by it. There are also individuals who must fight their personal demons every day. It's obviously not quite the same as the case detective Sarchie is confronted with. I'm obsessed about watching movies and sometimes I consider my job as a real demon that needs an exorcism. But rather that, than the entity that rages in "Deliver us from Evil". It's not an original film and certainly not groundbreaking, but I've seen worse creations the past year.


Personally I never came into contact with someone or something possessed by a demon and I don't understand why a normal person in such circumstances stays calm and tries to look at it rationally. I would surely run away and disappear without a trace. It seems like nothing or no one is immune to getting possessed, because I've already seen a whole collection passing by that evil took possession of : a church, a doll, the claw of a monkey, a Jewish casket, houses and innocent teenage girls. In "Deliver us from evil" for once it's an adult male who's the victim of an evil demon. Just as in "The Exorcist", where Father Merrin finds a statuette in Iraq as an archaeologist (which in turn causes a lot of misery), evil also originated out of Iraq. Some American soldiers end up in a kind of crypt which subsequently also causes all kinds of misery. Apparently the Middle East isn't only the main supplier of oil, but also a repository of all sorts of supernatural scum.


Nowadays horrors tend to be based on true facts and stories. This film also follows this tradition and is based on a book written by Ralph Sarchie ten years ago, in which he describes his experiences with paranormal situations. The film is not 100 percent the same as the book. Certain passages were used by Scott Derrickson (Sinister, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Devil's Knot) and Paul Haris Boardman (Hellraiser: Inferno, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Devil's Knot). Taking into account that also the production was in hands of the "Jerry Bruckheimer Films" production company, which is responsible for some well known movies like Pirates of the Caribbean, Deja Vu, Black Hawk Down and Pearl Harbor, you'd expect an extraordinary movie.


Those who watch a horror only occasionally, will have a pleasant and scary evening. For the tender-hearted among us, it will be a nerve excruciatingly, exciting film. Seasoned horror film lovers will get a "Well, haven't we seen that before" feeling. In terms of creating the right atmosphere they did a fine job. The entire film is immersed in a dark and oppressive setting in dreary New York City, more specifically the Bronx, and you get the impression that it's Sodom of America. A sinister, eerie scenery where Sarchie (Eric Bana) and his partner Butler (Joel McHale) face the pernicious that manifests itself in man. The dark alleys full of filth, the slums with dilapidated buildings and shabby accommodation, and the human suffering they encounter there. The body of a dead baby in a dumpster, domestic violence, murder, suicide and violence. Every day they are confronted with this. Until a nightly intervention concerning domestic violence leads to more obscure and sinister cases with an evil entity that's responsible. Expect the necessary cliches: a crucified cat, the well known scare effects, some gore moments (including the ever-present meat maggots), the self-playing piano, once again it's raining practically all the time, a foam-spitting confused woman who speaks gibberish in a foreign language and a traditional exorcism ritual that goes through all stages. And obviously mostly it takes place in the dark....


It's no suprise that "Deliver us from Evil" couldn't outperform the classic "The Exorcist". And mixing up a horror with an ordinary police thriller isn't a mind-blowing idea. Yet I found the duo Sarchie and Butler a successful formula. Sarchie is more of a coolheaded and fearless type who's gifted with the ability to detect mischief, while Butler takes care of the comic part. A bon vivant who eagerly uses sarcastic and cynical comments (humming the "The Adams Family" theme was pretty funny). It's not exactly brilliant acting that'll get them an Oscar, but it wasn't annoying bad either. I only felt that Bana, as a non-believer who renounces everything that has to do with religion since years, surrendered very quickly. Also Olivia Munn as Sarchie's pregnant wife, couldn't escape the cliché and appeared again as another neglected wife of a hardworking New York police officer. Personally I found the roles played by Olivia Horton and Sean Harris as respectively Jane and Santino , were the most imaginative. The moment Jane comes crawling out of the dark, drenched by blood with a bunch of keys between her lips, yields an image that can compete with some of "The Exorcist". They both look demonic, fearless and destructive. But surely Edgar Ramirez excelled the most as the modern priest Mendoza, who himself had a self-destructive past and who throws himself fully in a fight against the demonic evil.


"Se7en" was a masterpiece in the police thriller genre. Also dark, hallucinatory and unnerving exciting. But Satan didn't perform in it. Not literally anyway. "The Exorcist" was an unmatchable milestone in which exorcism played a key role. But here wasn't a detective involved. One would think that the mixing of two masterpieces would provide a unique film. Apparently not. "Deliver us from evil" manages to fail in both categories. It seems like a constant battle between the two genres. The end result is that it doesn't know which way to go. It's not bad, it's grim and horrible at the same time, but ultimately it's also not that impressive !