IkkegoeMikke's My Opinion as a Movie-Freak

The Anomaly
2014
Noel Clarke


“Is there a technology that allows people to control somebody else's mind?
Tell me about mind control!”

Once I was looking at a painting in an art gallery. I was studying this creation of modern art for more than half an hour and still I couldn't grasp what it actually wanted to prove and I came to the conclusion that after rotating it a quarter turn, there won't be any essential change. And then I remember the compulsory reading of a literary work out of the magical-mythical oeuvre of a Dutch writer, who used two pages to describe dead flies on a windowsill. And clearly I recollect the lesson "Statistics" at the university, looking at the blackboard for more than an hour and wondering what all the complicated theorems really meant. I had the same feeling while watching "The Anomaly". After half an hour I asked myself "What the hell am I watching and what's the meaning of it all ?". Seeing the main character waking up for the fifth time in a different location, looking around in a dopey way and not understanding how he ended up there at a different time in the future, began to irritate quickly. Meanwhile I could admire the graceful butt of a lascivious-looking vamp. Although it was a tasty image that claimed my attention, the urge to give up became larger by the minute.


It all starts with Ryan (Noel Clarke), an ex-soldier suffering from a trauma, waking up in a moving van where he finds a boy called Alex who is being kidnapped. He escapes with Alex but soon discovers that he only has a limited time to find out what is happening. To be precise, he only has 9 minutes and 47 seconds each time he wakes up and before he loses consciousness again. Slowly but surely he discovers that he's part of a conspiracy and his actions are coordinated by someone else.


As I mentioned earlier, it takes a while before you begin to realize what it's all about. "The Anomaly" is a dull low-budget film which starts very slowly and finally, when all the pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place, it all looks fairly simplistic and even ridiculously farfetched. It's like a rough mix of "Source Code", "The Bourne Identity", "Edge of Tomorrow" and "The Matrix". Regaining consciousness over and over again resembles a bit "Edge of Tomorrow", except that this phenomenon in the latter made sure there was tension and some comic moments. In this SF it's only a soporific effect. The fight scenes that occur repeatedly are a faint copy of this from "The Matrix" with the frequent use of slow motion images which isn't very conducive to the overall tempo in this film. Also the technical implementation by Noel Clarke during these fights wasn't convincing. It seemed as if he was waiting for something all the time. In other words, it wasn't really smooth.


Noel Clarke is quite a handyman in movie land. This British actor (better known for his role in the TV series "Doctor Who") directed this trifle and demanded to act as the leading star. Besides looking puzzled and surprised, painfully gasping after receiving an inhuman hard blow and acting as heroic as possible by repeatedly proclaiming that he eagerly wants to save the young boy Alex, there was nothing impressive to admire for the rest. I am quite convinced that the film was sponsored by a manufacturer of mens underwear, because Clarke was running around in it several times. Also the graceful leading lady Alexis Knapp as Dana, the Mother Theresa of this film, could be admired while wearing it or even less. At the first appearance we could glance at her lower body part and afterwards she was also scantily dressed. Eventually these were all fragments needed to raise the slacking attention, but at the same time I realized that her contribution only served to make things more sensual. Ian "Lost" Somerhalder is the one that appears again and again and who plays a significant role in the whole plot. I could not get rid of the impression that it was more a commercial decision to let him play so the female audience also could enjoy the ride. Brian Cox ("The Bourne Identity," "Mindscape" "Her" and "Doctor Who") has a lot of acting experience , but in this movie he's reduced to a houseplant who hardly comes into the picture.


An unconvincing story, no impressive performances and a total lack of tension. There's not much left anymore to save this from going down the drain completely. And the fact that this is a low-budget film, also means that the SE's won't be impressive. Admittedly, London still looks futuristic with the digitally added buildings at the background and flying airships. But the moment Ryan arrives at Times Square, everything looks average and contemporary (Even a screenshot shows that "We're the Millers" is still popular in the future.). The complete concept wasn't ill-conceived, only the script was poor and incoherent with some ridiculous situations. You didn't need to wait for this very long. Already at the beginning there was something wrong with the pursuit. Young Alex and Ryan have a small lead and yet they were too quick for the probably well-trained kidnappers. With an Olympic effort they managed to take a nice lead. And despite the high-tech gadgets that were available, they still couldn't prevent sun-flares disturbing the satellites. Eventually I began to wonder if the title of the film wasn't a reference to the film itself. Maybe it was just an exception to the rule "It's so bad, it turns out good".

Sabotage
2014
David Ayer

“Some of us are getting paid, the rest of us are just getting dead.”

So, You thought that Schwarzenegger would eventually retire on an Austrian alp, sitting on a terrace of a mountain hut with a big bierpul of "Kaiser Bier" within reach and a huge cigar between his fleshy lips while looking out over the valley, saying with a deep voice "Ich habe es Ihnen gesagt: Ich komme wieder". Or that he's wearing a bermuda and a Hawaiian shirt while sitting somewhere at the coast of California, getting a tan and looking out over the ocean. Well you were wrong. This former Mr. Universe and former governor of California came back with a rather explicitly violent action film. After the average film "The Last Stand" and the reasonably successful "Escape Plan" in which he and his eternal rival Sylvester Stallone turn up, I thought that this action-hero would call it a day. His contribution to "the Expendables" is as ironic as the film was intended.


But then they come up with this tough and bloody action movie in which John Wharton (Schwarzenegger) aka "Breacher" is in charge of a Special Operations Team that specializes in infiltrating criminal drug cartels. In another raid on a nest of drug traffickers, they manage to cram a portion of piled up drug money through a toilet drain, with the intention to recover it afterwards. However, the money appears to have disappeared and the team is suspended from active duty for a while so they can be subjected to an internal investigation about the alleged concealment of drug money. As members of this testosterone-charged team get massacred one by one in a beastly manner , Breacher starts together with detective Caroline Brentwood (Olivia Williams) an investigation, to find out who is the real culprit.


"Sabotage" is fully in line with the other Schwarzy movies. Partially anyway. First, the performance of old Arnie is still the same: stiff, emotionless and poorly. I can't understand that after all these years playing in American films, he still speaks with such a heavy Austrian accent. Not that his dialogues were so extensive formerly. It's only Arnold who uses such bombastic w's in witty phrases like "Get your weapons", "Get down" or "Are they as big as your wife's ...". Or is it just his trademark after all these years and he remains stubbornly loyal to this quality ? Just to remain recognizable in between the majority of today's action heroes. Additionally, you shouldn't expect a lot of depth in his movies. The same counts for "Sabotage". It's just a series of brutal action scenes in old-school style.


What surprised me was the level of sadism and gore that was used in this film. Normally Arnold's films are well packed with hard fight scenes and enormous shootings with innumerable victims. A wet dream for the average undertaker. Only in previous films they were economical with artificial blood. Mostly there wasn't even a speck of blood in it. In "Sabotage" on the other hand it flowed richly and they even showed some terribly mutilated victims. Arnold has reached a certain retirement age and performances with enormous physical efforts are no longer obvious. His contribution in this film is limited to leadership and using automatic rifles. The excitement was reasonably good and I dare even say that the traumatized Breacher was realistically portrayed by Arnold. Who would have thought of Arnold exhibiting a bit of acting talent.


"Sabotage" is an average exciting movie but holds on to the same formula as we know from Schwarzenegger. However, I fear that those who saw this movie, already forgot what it was about after a week. Even an action-packed chase scene at the end can't change the fact that the whole thing looks kind of lousy. The final twist, which is actually a logical consequence of the opening scene, isn't exactly impressive. There were also some imperfections in this film. How the hell could they know that the missing sum was $ 10 million exactly ? They kept detailed records of this drug cartel ? Even the attempt to break the record of "The Wolf of Wall Street" (the frequent use of the F-word), began to work on my nerves after a while. And despite the fact that the team consisted of a bunch of professionals, it felt more like a group out of a kindergarten at a certain moment, who amused themselves with childish bullying. "Sabotage": a raw and dark film with bloody scenes. According to David Ayer the film was sabotaged by the studio. They demanded to cut out half of the film. Whether this has ensured this film to become an average flick, we will never know.

Into the Storm
2014
Steven Quale


“Look at the size of that thing!
We're gonna be YouTube stars
for the rest of our lives!
Better than sex, Donk!
How would you know?”

Tornadoes, hurricanes and typhoons. Divorced men sometimes even compare them with their ex-wife: they appear suddenly, they disappear suddenly and before you know it you lost everything and are left behind penniless. So these are phenomena you don't want to encounter too much. Apparently it's the fault of a global warming (which must be in other corners in the world because where I live it's still cold, chilly and mostly wet) that causes tornadoes to appear so often and primarily plague the US mainland. Here in Europe fortunately we have less problems with it. Eating soup with brown beans will cause more commotion and turbulence than these natural phenomena. The tornado you can admire in "Into the storm" is of an exceptional caliber and you can hardly call it a "storm in a teacup". But if it was the intention to surpass the movie "Twister" from 1986, then they failed in all areas. It's a sad attempt, stuffed with boring cliches, terrible performances with boring and sometimes idiotic dialogues, now and then really bad CGI and nonsensical situations.


Pete (Matt Walsh) and his team are a group of professional "Storm Chasers". They have been on the road for a terrible long time, trying to film the eye of a hurricane. Apparently he has contracted the wrong academic counselor because Allison (Sarah Wayne Callies), a single mother and climatologist, succeeds in sending them in the wrong direction every time. So they always show up to late and the devastating hurricane already packed his bags, to the annoyance of Pete who sees his financial sponsorship gradually drying up due to the lack of results. Eventually they end up in Silverton where a super-storm apparently will strike. Here we meet a typical family with the death boring father Gary (Richard Armitage) and his two teenage sons Donnie (Max Deacon) and Trey (Nathan Kress). You can say that their family situation is quite stormy.


First, lets start with the positive things.
The opening scene was perfect. A tasty begin that made me lean back in anticipation of an entertaining evening while watching a natural disaster. A bunch of teenagers swallowed by an oncoming tornado, led directly to the right atmosphere. Unfortunately, however, it remained with this particular moment.
The two hillbillies took care of the hilarious part. Two clodhoppers racing through the countryside with a quad, handling a handy-cam and smartphone so they can make the perfect film of the storm, which they can post on You Tube so they become world famous and rich. A splendid duo that made me think of a "Dumb and Dumber" variant located in a disaster movie.
Some sequences with the raging tornado was eye candy. It looked real and the made destructions were imaged effectively. Especially the airport scene was prime. I was just wondering why such a small village needed such a mega-airport.


Which part was bad in this film? Actually, just about the rest. First, the untold number of cliches they swept together. A short list: the disinterested father coping with his sons, the son who's still dealing with the loss of his mother and blames his father, the impossible love who looks down on the nerd Donnie (with such an indignant look) at the beginning and you already can guess how this eventually will work out, trees that just happened to be blocking the last bus in a long line (and only the protagonists were sitting in it initially. Perfectly organized !), the father who's dominated by the headmaster but in the end puts him in his place, again a single mother and a lonely father and how they grow to each other is also so predictable. Secondly, the poor performances. Some dialogues felt so forced and uninspired. Sometimes it seemed like a soap opera that took place in a disastrous situation. With the ultimate heartbreaking moment when Gary saves Donnie and they fall into each others arms. The fact that most of them are only known from TV series, says enough.


Third, one can't exceed such a brilliant film like "Twister", which was impressive and original even though it's a film from the 80's, by simply showing four tornadoes raging simultaneously on the screen. And the way they appeared and disappeared, was also a bit exaggerated. And who remembers the flying, mooing cows in "Twister" ? Such hilarious moments were non-existent in "Into the Storm". Fourth, the CGI was not that impressive. A heap of Dinky Toys models that were blown together and buildings looking like cardboard boxes being destroyed. Fifth: the end with the immense pipeline under the road was too bizarre for words. Due to the immense suction, everyone had to cling onto something. But still there was someone standing in the background, filming everything. Astounding!


Conclusion: A faint duplicate of the movie "Twister", without conviction and swagger. It was even necessary to take part in the "Footage" hype of today. The dumb duo was the only bright spot in this film in my opinion. So, you have some spare time and nothing to do, then this is an alternative to waste your time. But there's really nothing in this film that will blow you away ....

Noah
2014
Darren Aronofsky


“We broke the world - we did this. Man did this. Everything that was beautiful, everything that was good, we shattered. Now, it begins again.”

I really wonder what's so terribly bad about the movie "Noah". Granted, it smells a bit like commercializing the book of all books (And I think this still is the most ingenious elaborated marketing plan ever devised in human history. This marketing plan made sure a book was written that will dominate the list of bestsellers in perpetuity. Probably until the end of the world ...) in compliance with all film adaptations of other literature (some great, some bad). After "The Lord of the Rings", "Harry Potter", "The Hunger Games", "Divergent" and other similar books susceptible to commercialization, it seems like Hollywood has found a Biblical gap in the market. End of this year Christian Bale will be wandering through the bone-dry desert like Moses (also with a trimmed beard) in "Exodus: Gods and Kings". Darren Aronofsky's religious story "Noah" is of a moister content, with Russell Crowe hammering together a huge boat, so he can defy the salt water (God sprinkled the earth's surface liberally) together with his offspring and all species living on earth, except for the water creatures, because they feel comfortable in this huge bathtub. But isn't it so that it should be freshwater instead of saltwater with all that rain ? And aren't there two types of aquatic animals ? Those who survive in saltwater and the others ? How was this crucial problem tackled ?


Anyway, despite the practical issues, this was a highly entertaining spectacle with an abundance of special effects and water (They used about 83,000 liters water in this film. A quantity that would make the average Ethiopian farmer really jealous ... ). You could expect the Christian community not being happy about the making of this film. Isn't it sacrilegious to turn this pious story into a mega spectacle and create it like contemporary fantasy films? (Sarcastic tone) I suggest they redesign the interior and decoration of churches, so that it would be a reflection of this rather epic-looking film. There's a high probability that one could reach a new fan base and the population of the group of churchgoers could grow again. I have no idea if this version of "Noah" follows the original story faithfully. The only thing I knew about it, was that an ark full of animals,which drifted on an immense ocean, played a major role. I don't know if the family troubles as presented here, correspond to the biblical story. It would be just a simple,short film if Aronofsky remained faithfull to the biblical version, because that story about the adventures of Noah is not that big of a deal.


And that's probably the Christian audience's key problem. The whole story is firmly filled up with profound special effects and great battles. A bold yet extremely successful choice was the introduction of "The Watchers". A collection of fallen angels who mutated into rocky beings. The comparison with "The Lord of the Rings" is made quickly . In particular, the movement of The Watchers is very similar to the way "The Ents" moved. Difficult and slow but at the same time, they can strike in a devastating way. The moment these "moving masses of rock" start to protect the Noah family against the onrushing crowd, with a fair part of the crowd being violently crushed and spinning through the air after a massive draw with their blocky fists, you could easily compare it with the attack on Minas Tirith (not the same size but with the same amount of adrenaline). Also the Ark is visually excellent developed. An apparently gigantic freighter with an entire zoo on board. Beautiful images and realistic created animals. Even the devastating flood was successful shown and was less fake as the one in "Evan Almighty".


Maybe it was the acting? Honestly I can't say anything wrong about that either. Ok, Russell Crowe doesn't really look like a devout man and the way he declares biblical phrases, seemed like a market vendor who tries to sell fake products convincingly. And yet he did it properly and the matter of conscience he was struggling with in the end, was sublimely interpreted. Only the emerging fanaticism started to bother me. But ultimately this is a tedious facet that's part of a religion. Although Jennifer Connelly, Naameh the wife of Noah, was limited seen in the picture and didn't play such a big part in the whole set-up, she was still the driving force that propelled Noah in the right direction. Anthony Hopkins, the helpful grandfather Methuselah who yearns for berries impressed me. And Ray Winstone as the warlike king Tubal-Cain, represented evil. The rest of the cast was necessary, but not particularly memorable.


"Noah" turned out to be an average disaster movie with a serious family conflict which could eventually become a family drama. Maybe it wasn't quite literally as written in the Bible, but in the end it was not sacrilege. And there is certainly no profanity. Maybe Christian representatives could be a little less narrow-minded and give this interpretation some credit. Eventually the sequence Aronofsky used for the creation of the Earth is also just a guess. No living soul can conclusively prove that this is the ultimate truth. Indeed, it's not a film where a funny giraffe and roguish elephant cosily sit alongside each other and look over the railing to the rising water. It's rather a gloomy and depressing picture about humanity who lives in sin being swept of the earth by "The Creator", because he's sick and tired of it, so He can start over with a clean slate. But with whom? That's another theological riddle, I suppose.


Finally, some elements that seemed disturbing and a bit implausible. That the Ark was immense, I can imagine. But that it's of such a size that a stowaway hasn't been discovered after a year, seems a bit exaggerated. Knowing that the stowaway isn't vegetarian, wouldn't that be detrimental to the resting flock ? The pregnancy test made me frown. And the final denouement is entirely hallucinatory. Eventually Noah didn't need to worry about anything in the end, because the offspring was the solution on their own. And otherwise I need to think twice next time, before I use the word "inbred".


All in all, it's an enjoyable film (despite me not being that religious) with a few little miss, but still a stunning visual presentation with beautiful, serene interpretations. For those who started tearing their hair and protesting against it (even before there was any finished material): isn't it written in the Bible "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14) ? I suggest you forgive Aronofsky's artistic freedom and approach this interpretation with a more open mind. That would be nice example of "loving one's neighbour". Amen !

The Babadook
2014
Jennifer Kent


"If it’s in a word, or it’s in a look
You can’t get rid of the Babadook.”

For a horror to be successful, there are several opportunities for hands. Either you use gore elements in such a way that blood, guts and all sorts of other slimy ingredients start dripping, slipping and flowing from the screen. Either an old known creepy veteran (vampire, werewolf or serial killer) shows up and during nocturnal activities scares the **** out of people. Or you use a busload of "from the underworld" derived demons, who take control of a weak person or some ramshackle building and should be exorcised by applying religious rituals what leads to objects flying around and an in foreign language speaking monstrous-looking possessed person. "The Babadook" has none of this. This subtle horror story uses dark corners and grim,sinister sounds. It's a story that can be interpreted in different ways and in which the phenomenon of "The Babadook" appears by reading a children's book which popped up suddenly in Samuel's bookcase. It's the same as in "Candyman" where the legendary figure Candyman appeared when chanting his name five times in front of a mirror or as in "Evil Dead" when the demons were released after a tape with ancient ritual texts was played.


Six years after the fatal accident that killed her husband Oskar (Benjamin Winspear), Amelia (Essie Davis) is still processing this heavy loss and tries to make ends meet as a single mother, together with her son Samuel (Noah Wiseman). The accident happened on the way to the hospital when Amelia was about to give birth. A traumatic experience that disrupted her relationship with Samuel. You can be sure that Amelia is torn by guilt and her feelings for Samuel balances between affection and blame. Samuel also did not emerge unscathed from this life event and is anything but an easy boy. At a certain moments I assumed that the unruly and hyperkinetic child Samuel, was the thread in this horror. What a nightmare it is to raise such a hysterical child! The hysteria is also fueled by the irrational fear Samuel has for monsters, what leads to a daily ritual of checking closets and other spaces, the inability to control him, Samuel who can't function in a normal way in a group with all the consequences and the sleepless nights. And when "The Babadook" even starts to wander in the dark corners of the house of this dysfunctional family, total insanity is not far away and Amelia is on the verge of a complete nervous breakdown.


The Australian writer and director Jennifer Kent manages to mix the well-known "fear of monsters under the bed"-item with traumatic life events and an emotional state of mind into a dizzying downward spiral that leads to total insanity. It's not horror elements and terrifying frights that enables this, but the excellent performances of Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman. Essie Davis plays an extremely complicated character who, as the film progresses, degenerates psychologically and needs to drag herself fatigued,depressed and hopeless through life. Kent clearly focused on the portrayal of this mother-figure and very minutely Amelia's psyche is exposed. Noah Wiseman manages to portray Samuel as a very annoying, uncontrollable and confused boy with an obsession for weapons, which he needs to defeat the evil monsters with. This obsession gets him expelled from school and injures the snooty daughter of Amelia's sister. With his bulging eyes and pale skin, he looks sick and obviously you have both pity on him and on the other hand he's so unbearable that you would prefer to smack his head against a brick wall. Just as his mum wished to do at a particular moment. Would he be such a brat in reality than this performance is nothing special. Otherwise it's a masterful acting performance. "The Babadook" is ultimately a kind of "Edward Scissorhands" dressed like a magician. A caricature as pictured in the inky pop-up book.


"The Babadook" is not your average horror and was subtly elaborated. It can easily be called the most original and bizarre horror of the year. The seasoned horror fans will not find it truly terrifying and some patience will be asked from the impatient horror fans to endure the slow build up. But put that aside and you can enjoy an excellent psychological horror that'll still haunt your thoughts for some time. It's your choice to decide whether this film is an observation out of the perspective of Amelia or whether it's a manifestation that arose from her psychological mess. I thought there were some hints that suggest that we are witnessing the nightmare Amelia lives in. Or "The Babadook" is just another bogeyman that can be placed in the gallery together with his colleagues.

"Ba-ba-ba ... dook! Dook ! DOOOOOKH ! "

Lockout
2012
James Mather, Stephen Leger

“Ow! (INJECTS)
That'll freeze the nerves in this spot for 24 hours.
You want some on your mouth? “

Don't expect a cinematic masterpiece when watching this movie, but expect it to be an entertaining empty-headed action sci-fi with Guy Pearce as a purebred John McClane, in an ultra-modern prison in space, who must save the president's daughter. A clichéd kind of Musketeers story with the slogan "One for all, all for one" replaced by "One against all". A well-known and popular story with the hero fighting against a whole horde of scum, just about 500 murderers and rapists who awoke from an artificial nap, and helping a comely damsel in distress. You can safely call it "Die Hard In Space".


The story itself isn't really special and feels rather incoherent. Don't be discouraged by the terrible chase scene at the beginning of the film. That looked terribly outdated and it seemed like it came straight out some kind of C64 game. Some parts are fairly unlikely (including the wind tunnel and the disguise trick of presidential daughter which gave me a "Yeah sure" feeling) and the predictability level is immense high. But besides that, the action-part can be considered very satisfactory and particularly the characters are interesting enough to turn it into an entertaining movie to fill up the evening.


Guy "The Rover" Pearce enjoys himself here as the quite burly muscular bundle "Snow", who behaves in a rather fatalistic way and pulls every now and then a dry one-liner or sarcastic remark out of his hat, what provides for some chuckle moments. Once again the comparison with the young Bruce Willis is made quickly. The conversations between him and Maggie Grace (as Emilie Warnock) are highly entertaining at times. But especially the two criminal brothers Alex (Vincent Regan) and Hydell (Joseph Gilgun) steal the show (a kind of "Jekyll and Hyde" interpretation). Two extremely dangerous criminals with Alex as a born leader. But especially Gilgun is brilliant at times as the total crazy Hydell with a heavy English accent. He looks quite terrifying and spoils the plans of his brother over and over again (a stupid decision which Alex makes again and again).


Besides the imaginative design of a space prison where dangerous criminals are piled up (literally) to serve their sentence while being in a coma, a whole bunch of hilarious one liners and action scenes filled with crazy prisoners, in the end this is just a third-rate simple action movie with a linear storyline. A film that fits in our consumer society. Consume, digest and forget. My favorite part is the beginning of the film where a punch and a crooked cigarette are the attributes. Once again it immediately reminded me of a similar scene from "The Last Boy Scout". I assume that Bruce has done it all before.

The Longest Week
2014
Peter Glanz

“Sometimes you're your own worst enemy.”

For Conrad this was apparently the longest and most painful week. For me this was the longest and most painful movie experience. Anyway I have a strong dislike for a voice-over that begins with "This is ..." followed by the name of the main character. This is usually already a bad omen. You can almost compare it with the voiceover that starts with "My name is ..." followed by the name of the main character (with a few exceptions such as "Forrest Gump"). But lets return to "The Longest Week". They've taken their time to release this romantic comedy (although I haven't discovered much humor). Apparently it was already completed in 2012. Was it doubt that made them forget about it ? Or were the reactions of the test audiences so disastrous? However, if you want to see how a spoiled rich son in his thirties is thrown out of his comfort zone without money or continuous attention for his egocentric personality, after that relying on a friend to get through this horrible time and falling in love with a handsome model, then you should definitely take a look. Don't forget to lay down a cozy cushion near you, because this is just about the slowest film I've ever seen with content so meaningless, that I hand over an award to myself for unparalleled endurance.


Visually it all was quite beautiful to watch. Stylized, detailed and artistically (the series of images, the jazzy music, the clothing and furniture). It also had a little tendency to be pretentious. Well that suits the main character Conrad : a pretentious snob who's being pampered all his life by the staff of The Valmont Hotel. A narcissist who has never proven anything and will never have the need to prove himself. Someone who was born so privileged that he can't imagine what it's like to care for himself in real life without everything being handed on a silver platter. Maybe that's why I already hated this pretentious layabout and would-be author after 10 minutes. The fact that his future novel (in the line of Fitzgerald) wasn't yet completed, I attribute solely to his lifestyle. That some life lessons are the cause of an acceleration in his writing process, was pure fiction, in my opinion.


Read other reviews and the name Woody Allen comes up often. Despite the reputation and the huge share of followers this filmmaker has, I've never been a fan of his creations. They each seem like complex, highly intellectual comedies. I always had the impression that the humor of Woody Allen's films was hidden in the syntactic errors that the main players made cunningly, because I never really thought it was funny. I know that those who link this movie with Woody Allen didn't think of this fact particularly, but for me this is the most plausible link, because real humor I haven't found in "The Longest Week" either. There was one particular moment for me that seemed comical. When Jenny Slate (I really have to watch "Obvious Child") gives her opinion about a play they've attended, and by that lays her finger on the sensitive points.


I understand the satirical meaning of this film and the exaggeration of Conrad's pretension, but couldn't honestly empathize with the complete story (in analogy with Slate). It's like the descriptions used for Dylan Tate, Conrad's best friend : Dylan is "an anti-social socialist", "a closet conversationalist" and "a clinical neurotic". A series of expensive, intellectual words that sound complicated, but ultimately mean nothing. Similarly, the snobbish conversations with much ado. I was always wondering which individuals would converse in such a way with each other and at the same time know what it's about. Even the notorious love triangle they came up with, felt artificial. As artificial as the eyelashes of Beatrice (Olivia Wilde). They reminded me of the plastic doll my sisters played with 40 years ago. It had the same flashing eyes with lashes so big that you could protect yourself against the burning sun in summer. Pretentious, not?

Stonehearst Asylum
2014
Brad Anderson

“The satisfaction of helping those in hell.
See, of all the afflictions, I can think of none more, more cruel than madness, sir.
See, it robs a man of his reason, his dignity, his very soul.
And it does so, so slowly, without the remorse of death.”

Can you remember Ben Kingsley in "Shutter Island" as head of a psychiatric institution dressed up in a white overcoat ? In "Stone Hearst Asylum" he took that white overcoat back out of the closet and while smoking a pipe with a pensive look, he's extensively lecturing about the revolutionary method he applies at psychiatric patients. It's a movie based on the short story "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" from 1845, written by the supreme master of horror stories, Edgar Allan Poe. This master of the sinister and macabre, who used the dark depths of the human soul and primal fears as a foundation, situated this story in the south of France in those days. An institution used an unconventional way to treat internees. Instead of locking them up, they allowed patients to empathize with their delusions and their madness.


The whole story is relocated to Britain in the Victorian era. In that time psychiatry still used inhumane methods such as bloodletting, rotational therapies and outright torture by use of electrocution or near-drowning. It's in this period that Dr. Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess) arrives at the quite spooky looking and secluded Stone Hearst Asylum. A Victorian building that easily could be used as background for an old horror movie and resembles Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania. Newgate wants to gain clinical experience in this institution. A tour of Dr. Lamb shows that the psychiatric treatments used look pretty bizarre. Soon however, he's warned by Eliza Graves (Kate Beckinsale), a gifted pianist who looks absolutely beautiful and immediately arouses Newgate's curiosity. She urges him to leave Stonehearst as soon as possible.


And then we're off for an old-fashioned detective thriller where Newgate is trying to figure out what hidden secrets there are within the walls. A costume film with lots of candlelight and draughty corridors and dungeons. A sad fact is that very early in the film the greatest secret is revealed, so the tension actually gets badly mauled. It's not a real nail-biter anymore afterwards and eventually it evolves into a dated suspense film with a touch of romance, a spark of excitement and a bit of comedy. Nicely designed though, but at the same time as gruesome as an episode of Sesame Street. However, the final denouement was still Poe worthy and fairly surprising.


Brad Anderson can be highly thankful for getting together such a star cast for this movie. Celebrities like Ben Kingsley and Michael Caine are not just any actors. Unfortunately Caine's contribution is fairly limited. That's because of the circumstances in which he finds himself and afterwards because of his mental state. Kingsley can indulge himself in his role as the fairly unstable and unpredictable Dr.Lamb. A role with emotions swinging back and forth like an old fashioned pendulum clock. But the most I enjoyed the character Mickey Finn, played by David Thewlis (Better known as Remus Lupin from Harry Potter). A fairly disturbed figure with murderous thoughts. Kate Beckinsale provides the visual delight with her beautiful appearance. Although she's actually the most normal looking person among all the other crazy characters, I always felt like watching at Keira Knightley in "A dangerous method". An expressive facial expression accompanied by a lot of sighs and groans. Jim Sturgess was predominantly in the picture, but actually didn't make an overwhelming impression.


In the end it wasn't an earth-shattering movie. Amusing yes. And there are worse ways to spend your time. What stays with you are the odd personages who roam through the corridors of this institution: the man who thinks he's a horse and only meekly follows orders when he's being threatened that his next comb-over will be skipped, the nymphomaniac nurse and the Frankenstein-like wild man locked in a dungeon. The wise words told to aspiring psychologists at the beginning "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.", is indeed applicable to this film, because there are some whoppers of story twists in the end. Final tip : don't watch any trailer, because they give away too much !

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
2014
Matt Reeves

"I always think... ape better than human. I see now... how much like them we are."

After the magnificent "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" from 2011, Caesar the legendary ape who started the revolution for his species, can show up again in this sequel. It's 10 years later and the world has been decimated thanks to the Simian virus. This flu originated from a genetically engineered virus and ensured that the apes became systematically wiser. The magisterial beginning shows Caesar in close-up and from there it's a run-up to an amazing first 20 minutes in which no human is seen and we witness the ins and outs of the apes commune, who communicate by use of a kind of sign language. They have retreated into a mountainous forest near San Francisco, where they have formed a primitive society with Caesar as the absolute leader. They lead a peaceful existence, not aware of the fact that humanity has survived the pandemic. Until such underdeveloped biped turns up one day and immediately shoots an ape at first sight. And that's the beginning of a very interesting struggle for power between two different cultures with survival instinct, self-preservation and demarcating the territory as a central issue. Eventually you start to wonder who really is a primitive species.


Is it necessary to see this movie in less than no time because of the original story with surprising twists? Nope, not at all. It's not really that exciting and even a normal chimpanzee can predict the outcome. But, it's the amazing design of the apes and the sometimes real human actions and emotional traits that they show. Probably the fact that the actors are "motion captured" has something to do with it, but it's still breathtaking to watch. At certain moments the CGI wasn't quite correct. Especially the fragments of the horse riding apes. You can notice sometimes that these were computer animations. But that's really nitpicking. The Most part looked lifelike and one can only conclude that the authentic episodes of "Planet of the Apes" from the 60's were irrefutable populated by costumed actors.


The final confrontation between humans and apes, with Caesar, again played by Andy Serkis (who formerly also performed as Gollum in TLotR), and Malcolm (Jason Clarke) as the two righteous leaders of the two parties, is of course inevitable. Clearly a sociopolitical theme was ingeniously woven throughout the cheap, ordinary Hollywood entertainment. The mutual distrust with revenge as the cause for the sneaky tricks and treachery. One group is pissed off because the apes are supposedly the origin of the extermination of mankind. The other group is unnerved by the years of abuse in laboratories and a doomed life in captivity. The result, of course is a clash with also some internal feuds and conflicts.


Unfortunately after several memorable and downright masterful film clips, we're treated with some ordinary, cheap action movie scenes. A kind of "Expendables meets The A-Team" with heroically swinging of automatic rifles, rockets whizzing around the ears as if the third world war just began and even a tank broke loose. Next to that a big can of sentimentality is pulled open quickly leading to an engaging conversation between Caesar and his son. And then the curtain falls across this magnificent epos with a picture of a real Messiah who parades among his followers. An open end that yearns for an overwhelming third part. But beyond this kitschy final offensive you can admire a few cinematic gems like the appearing of the apes colony in the big city, where they speak to the crowd in an admonishing tone. You could feel the consternation of the crowd after hearing the first words of Caesar. And also the magnificent mimicry Koba used at one time to deceive two armed men. A moment where CGI and facial expressions blend effortlessly. Yes, that's the reason why you should watch this movie.

Mindscape
2013
Jorge Dorado

“If you ever find me particularly attractive in a memory …it’s probably because I made that up too”

There's this saying "A penny for your thoughts". And sometimes it's better not to know what someone's thoughts are. John Washington (Mark Strong) experienced that firsthand. John is a "Memory detective", working for Mindscape Company, and has the ability to penetrate into the memory of people in order to figure out what's going on in the psyche. This procedure is sometimes used in court cases to determine whether the accused is indeed the culprit. It's still not totally valid but the technique is preferred to be used instead of a lie detector test. But John himself is also a tormented spirit and during a session he got confronted with his own memory of his deceased wife and he got a mild heart attack. He's mentally unable to perform his work as "Memory detective" and he goes on a well-deserved rest. The lack of money becomes a problem and he's forced to return to his boss Sebastian (Brian Cox) who gives him a seemingly simple case in which a teenage girl refuses to eat. John needs to find out whether she is a brilliant sociopath or a traumatized teenager.


The movie "Mindscape" (also known as "Anna") balances between the classic detective and the modern science fiction genre. Immediately "Inception" comes into your mind as a comparison. And despite "Mindscape" using the principle of dream layers (but here it's applied to memories), it doesn't feel like a real SciFi. It's rather the unraveling of a complicated puzzle. I think the film is more like "Extracted" although the latter was a major disappointment when it's about the level of tension. Although John has the ability to explore someone's brain cells, it seemed he himself had a shortage of those. I was surprised that he was a notorious "Memory detective", because although the clues were so crystal clear (the signature for example), he didn't seem to notice them. Did he need huge fluorescent arrows to point it out for him ? And apparently the writers thought that the audience watching this movie stood at the end of the line during the dispensation of brains, because there were really huge whoppers of errors and improbabilities in the end.


But despite the disappointing end and the illogical conclusion, it was an exciting and dark film. While John digs deeper into the memories of Anna, he becomes more and more embroiled in an ingenious spun web of misleading events and mysterious developments. The story reveals the different pieces painfully slow. Mark Strong has that look that perfectly suits the person John Washington : confident and focused, smart enough to make the right associations (but yet not smart enough to interpret the obvious clues correctly. Too evident probably.) . And yet he looks like a fragile and vulnerable person who exudes a kind of melancholy and gloom. This will probably be a typical trait of Strong, cause he also looked like that in "Welcome to the Punch".


Taissa Farmiga, the intelligent Anna who balances between trauma and violence, was an undeniably perfect choice for this role. For me, a rising star of the same level as Saoirse Ronan: an innocent look with a certain sensuality and yet frighteningly dangerous. She looked familiar to me and afterwards I read she played Sarah in "Jamesy Boy". The conversations between John and Anna were pleasant to hear and sometimes put together in a very clever way, with John trying to uncover the truth, while Anna quirky parries these attempts by using her intellect. It's a pitty that the intellect of reasoning and conversing wasn't used in the overall storyline. Because despite a slasher-like start that turned into a psychological thriller, was the ending still pretty disappointing. The rendition by Farmiga was impressive. The storyline however will only be a memory after a while ....

Moms' night out
2014
Andrew & Jon Erwin

“So here's the Plan... We take them inside, get their hand stamped and they can't get out. Like Shawshank Redemption.”

Let me just say it briefly but powerful. I thought this was an insult to all current fathers who are portrayed again as incapable to raise children or watch over them for a while. Again there's the image that a family life and the daily organization only can run smoothly when super-mammy is around. Let hubby take care of it and everything will end up in a chaotic mess. Sorry, but I think this is such a terrible outdated idea and again the subject of another "everything-goes-wrong" film. These days new terms like "The New Man" are used frequently so the idea being used in here, is kind of old-fashioned. And the statement that modern women can do a multitude of tasks simultaneously nowadays, is also a rarity. There are enough women who aren't blessed with this multitasking feature.


I also hate these kind of movies where everything goes wrong and it always seems like "Murphy" is at every corner waiting to interfere with the situation in such a way that everything goes haywire. I am a very huge fan of the sitcom "Friends" and have always looked at these episodes with pleasure. Except for one episode and that's the one where Ross needs to give a speech and everyone gets terribly annoying so it looked as if it would turn into a disaster. In the end everything turns out just fine. That's a recurring security in such films (and also in that particular episode of "Friends"). "Moms' night out" also finishes in a corny way with a Christian message. Afterwards I was terrible dizzy and I was struggling to get my eyes back into position again. And this because the film constantly annoyed me and made sure I was turning my eyes around like hell in my eye sockets.


The entire film can be summarized as follows. The highly stressed mother Allyson (Sarah "Greys Anatomy" Drew) urgently needs to take a break to let off steam (she's not blessed with the multitasking option apparently) and asks her two friends, Izzy (Andrea Logan White) and Sondra (Patricia Heaton) to join her in a night out. Her husband Sean (Sean Astin who still looks like a hobbit) understands the situation and fully supports her. He'll take care of the children that weekend along with his friends Kevin (Kevin Downes), who hates children, and Marco (Robert Amaya), who also could use some psychiatric assistance due to his chronic anxiety when it comes to childcare. And then the "Night out" starts and the accumulation of accidents, mishaps and misunderstandings begins. Even a summary of all extreme disaster movies of the last decade is nothing, compared to this catastrophic night. Everything goes wrong. And I mean literally everything.


The performances aren't that great either. However, this is not due to the performance of the actors themselves, but rather because of the created stupid, bland, banal cardboard characters with their dramatized and pathetic traits. The tensed mother, with a bunch of kids, who are portrayed as a gang of hooligans, who suffers from a cleaning illness and sees herself as a complete failure (she can't even think of any content for her blog , the poor soul ...). Her girlfriend, the wife of a priest, acts like a saint but ultimately it appears she has a more dissolute past. Sean is the typical loving man who always seems to understand his wife (but it turns out he doesn't. And he's not the only one ...) and tries to take matters in hand, but ultimately looks pretty clumsy. His friends transform during the film into something they are not at the beginning. The only admirable display was of Trace Adkins as Bones. A kind of "Hulk Hogan" type who turns out to be the savior in distress. Even his moralizing speech afterwards (of which he doesn't understand the impact) I could condone. A successful performance that managed to put a half smile on my face. And the last honorable mention: Manwell Reyes as the person in the tattoo shop.


As full time working parents of two little kids, we've never experienced such situations and think it's slightly exaggerated. As the film progressed it started to cause irritation. Even my wife, who's my checkpoint when it comes to comedies, also looked at me with a slightly frustrated look after a while. Afterwards I can conclude that this was a fairly unsuccessful movie. It's a comedy without funny moments. Just like a barbecue without meat. The intention is good, but the end result is tasteless. And for all the happy newlyweds who have plans about expanding their family, I strongly advise not to watch this film. They might rethink it ...

The Borderlands
2013
Elliot Goldner


"The Borderlands" provides evidence that an IMDb score isn't necessarily a guarantee that a film is bad or excellent. I've seen movies that had a low score there and still surprised me. This would-be horror still gets an exceptionally high score, but I found it depressingly bad. I even read someone's opinion in which he suggested that he was afraid to look at the screen because it was too psychotic and shocking. I'm sure I've seen the censored version, because there was really nothing horrible or terrifying in this film.


To be honest I also had trouble watching this movie, but this because of the urge to fall asleep all the time. "The Borderlands" tries to profit from the hype of found-footage films. It's a kind of "The Amityville Horror", but this time set in a church, mixed with a bit of "Paranormal Activity". Although these activities are very limited. I promise I won't reveal too much, since it's already a very weak and thin story. Otherwise there will be absolutely nothing left anymore. The film refers to a religious aspect and especially the way the Catholic faith was imposed causing ancient primal religions being supplanted. The Vatican regularly sends a team of experts to certain places around the world where supernatural phenomena occur. The whole purpose is to investigate whether these phenomena are authentic or, as shown in most cases, simply are of a natural origin or pure fraud. So a team whose members are an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman (sounds like a joke) , is given the task to investigate a case of paranormal activity in the local church in the British West Country.


But I have to hand it, this film has the perseverance to keep all aspects related to a horror to a strict minimum so the end result is a bunch of meaningless components. First, the story is simplistic and not particularly innovative. The suspense part is anyway meager. A horror won't be horrible because of a pair of sliding candlesticks, a burning sheep or a sheet full of meat maggots. A few scary noises and slamming doors won't make it exactly a possessed church. I guess it's rather due to the fact that the dilapidated church stands on a hill and therefore is subject to the forces of nature, including wind gusts. The found-footage section was also nothing to write home about. You have 3 investigators constantly walking around with a mobile camera attached to their head, shooting sickening swirling meaningless images. The technician on duty also covered the whole house where they were staying with fixed cameras (why exactly there, while the phenomena are occurring in the church, was a mystery to me). On these images which were shown constantly throughout the film was, what a surprise, nothing to see! At the end there remained one practical question: how the hell did they get those found-footage images ?


And than the thing that got most on my nerves: the acting. What a bunch of implausible characters they scraped together here. First there's the technician Gray (Robin Hill), who doesn't believe there's something spooky going on in the beginning and rather wants to scram as soon as possible, but eventually stays because of the bonus. But when the first candle in an inexplicable way hits the ground, he's immediately convinced that something isn't right. Then we have the firmly drinking Scotsman Deacon (Gordon Kennedy) who apparently made ​​a miscalculation in the past (with priests being murdered as a result) and they still blame him for that. And finally the fairly haughty Irish ambassador of the Vatican Mark (Aidan McArdle) who has a reasonable persevering attitude towards the poltergeist situation and has a plausible scientific explanation for each suspicious phenomenon. And the thing that almost gave me chronic diarrhea, was Gray ending every sentence with "Dude". This stop-word was even used when talking to clerics. It seemed as if this ghost story took place in the slums of New York instead of on English soil. Fortunately there was no crucifix nearby, otherwise I had thrown it to my LCD TV after the 50th "Dude".


I'm not really a big fan of found footage (for the usual reasons) and till now I only saw a few that were quite worth it. However "The Borderlands" is on all fronts a big disappointment. Lousy renditions, absolutely no tension or suspense and a really farfetched and abrupt ending. The only positive is the claustrophobic closure and the sometimes sarcastic, humorous dialogues. The reason why I watched the whole movie is because I was curious how it would eventually end.


Conclusion: yet another found footage hocus-pocus story without scary or intense moments, totally not original or groundbreaking, with a bizarre collection of characters like a gullible non-believer, a skeptic spiritual and a priest who should reread the Bible before using his fists again. Many parts are probably interesting for hardened hikers who dare to stretch their legs on weekends and make long walks through fields and woods (with the unpleasant confrontation with feces from ruminants). The end was eerie but came too late.

Wer
2013
William Brent Bell

“There are also some signs of bite marks,
that seems to belong to a great beast.
Broken knees as a whole.
Well, the whole jaw was broken.
Again, no signs of the use of weapons of any kind ...”

There is a horror genre of which really very few films are made, and that's the werewolf genre. We are inundated with films about zombies, all sorts of demonic forces and paranormal phenomena. But we don't see our profusely hairy friend that often. There are only a limited number of successful werewolf movies like "The Wolfman", "Silver Bullet" and "The Howling". "An American Werewolf in London" is for me a classic and a jewel in this genre. It's no surprise that this film won an Oscar and a Saturn award for best grimage. Of course there are also some misfires in terms of grimage, special effects and content such as "Night Wolf" for example.


In "Wer" (ridiculous movie title by the way) it's not a werewolf we get to see, but rather a "Wolfman". This means you won't see a real transformation into a wolf and the corresponding creature has excessive hair growth, an impressive stature and probably strong jaws with disproportionate grown teeth. It's not really the appearance and movement of a wolf (although we do get a glimpse of this at the end).


Just as "Afflicted" managed to revive an old horror genre (in this case about vampires), of which films are made into infinity with all necessary and related clichés, by approaching the subject from a different angle, "Wer" tried it with the werewolves genre. It's also starting with a found-footage part where we witness how an American family, on holiday in France, becomes the victim of an unknown creature that tears them into shreds. After a while the obscure,strange individual Gwynek Talan (Brian Scott O'Connor) is arrested. He's suspect number one and accused of being the person who committed this terrible crime. An imposing person with hands like coal shovels and who looks like a walking hairy carpet. Talan is entitled to a lawyer and that's when Kate Moore (AJ Cook) comes up with two assistants Eric Sarin (Vic Sahay) and Gavin Flemyng (Sebastian Roche).


You can divide the movie into two parts. The first part is the least interesting part (to be honest it's fairly boring). A.J.Cook wasn't really convincing as a lawyer and came across as a timid lightweight advocate. It's only until Talan is subjected to a medical examination to determine whether he suffers from Porphyria, a disorder which affects the hair grow and the body length of a person, the situation starts to escalate. This disease is also important evidence because if someone suffers from this condition he can't move that fast anyway. So it could be the ultimate proof that Talan might not be the culprit. The principle of a werewolf is approached in a scientific way. Kind of original.


The second part is flashy and brutal with quite a few skulls being crushed and a whole bunch French policemen being dismembered. A rapidly moving violent werewolf who, despite its almost human form, goes on a killing spree in a monstrous way, leaving behind an unreal bloody trace. Despite the limited budget, the used SE's are realistic and there's never a feeling that too much CGI was used. We get a ferocious werewolf that causes a true massacre. Also Gavin will provide an extra surprise which will lead to a fairly grotesque and absurd ending. Need I say that Sebastian Roche treats us to a wonderful acting performance.


Despite the slow start, where really nothing interesting happens, and the absurd ending, it still resulted in an eerie, terrifying and intense monster movie which is still worth to give it a try. Even the found-footage (of which I'm not really such a big fan) didn't really bother me. It's self-evident this isn't really a family film. There are some explicit images of mutilated bodies and a blood-stained looming figure, that turns this into an ominous film. It surely isn't exactly intended for little kids. It won't go down in history as the most successful werewolf movie of all time, but it certainly is way better than all the pitiful efforts which have been undertaken over the last 10 years.

I feel like you've cheated yourself out of a good movie based on the werewolf design, which to my eyes is nothing more than high camp, and done well all things considered. An American Werewolf in London had Universal Pictures behind it and all of that money with an auteur director who made them money and who got plenty of finance, not to mention make up effects teams that were pay rolled just fine. I'd say that in spite of this low budget here, Robert Kurtzman of KNB did fine work, even with the transformation scene. I mean, this was part comedy, after all, and to compare it to Landis's film based on what you wrote about the werewolf look, I just don't understand how you can discount all the great things that were glaringly more important about the film aside from the obligatory beast.