Reviews

This documentary does a very difficult feat: not simply to tell history as it was but also give the viewer a sense of the Great War and its consequences. The story is so powerful it leaves the viewers shocked and saddened. And that's the only way a documentary about a war should give you - a lesson so that we will never engage in a similar war. Sadly, we often talk about history in a detached and distant way without contextualizing it. That's why this documentary does such a great job. It should not only be rereleased and sold but also mandatory viewing in school. It takes some time to go through all the episodes and linked with discussions after each episode would allow for a highly valuable educational experience.

The film provides a decent history of Mickey Mouse in film and also shows some other art forms that were inspired. It does not shy away from problematic aspects and even mentions Disney's obsession with copyright which have been quite problematic. However a great shortcoming is the complete lack of reference to comic strips and comic books. They have been just as important for the rise and popularity of Mickey Mouse and it is a great disappointment that its missing. Floyd Gottfredson's daily newspaper strip was iconic and spread the Mouse worldwide while Walt Disney's signature appeared on each and everyone suggesting that Disney was the actual artist. Later artists like Paul Murry or Romano Scarpa should also not be forgotten. There are still comic books named after Mickey Mouse that are published regularly in numerous countries worldwide. So this was a bit of a letdown. Instead, the interviews somewhat dragged down the documentary without adding more information, which made it a bit boring, especially at the end.

This movie was really deeply disappointing. It promised to be a film about the race riots but this was extremely superficial and lacked any explanatory power. The characters remained flat and spoke in stilted dialogue which was boring to watch and sometimes even painful. Many scenes are overly sentimental or emotionally exaggerated with the music and other horribly used effects. Moreover, there were a number of scenes which overdid the propaganda, for instance when praising Singapore's first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. Two foreigners are seen talking how great the statesman is (very cheesy!). This made it clear that the movie was mainly done to memorialize the "founding father". This point was again emphasized at the end when the movie draws attention to his mourning period when people lined up to pay their last respects to the former leader (which is not central to the riots). At the same time, it is perhaps surprising that the actor playing Lee Kuan Yew is not at all convincing. If he was not called Lee Kuan Yew, it would be hard to guess who it is. In the end, the movie reminded me a little of the recent Chinese propaganda movies celebrating the origins of the Communist Party. Only that the quality was even worse.

In conclusion 1 out of 10. Do not waste your time with this attempt at a historical movie.

This collection of five short films is an amazing selection of dystopic visions that explore the worries of Hong Kong citizens. Driven by the growing intervention of China in the former British colony, many are worried about the destruction of their way of life. Each of the films uses this general theme differently from conspiracies to the Kafkaesque, the shorts tell the story of the less fortunate, the scientists, the food sellers, the taxi drivers, and the localists who are fighting for the autonomy or even independence of China's special administrative region. Each of the episodes move the audience deeply. As the movie paints an increasingly negative picture of Chinese rule over the city, it is not surprising that articles in official Chinese government mouthpieces have chastised the movie. Even in Hong Kong, many movie theaters did not show this film, which is a true shame, considering that the others were often sold out. I am truly hoping for a DVD soon! This is a movie I must own.

There are parts of the movie that are really funny and that's what Jack Neo does best. He would do well in Sitcoms. However, this is a propaganda movie about an elite navy unit in Singapore which focuses a great deal on some aspects of military training. The scenes in between the episodes of comedy and drama, which are quite similar to movies such as I Not Stupid, are long and tedious to watch. There are quite a few times when you think the movie should end here and I had to drag myself to continue to watch it.

If I compare this movie to another military propaganda movie, The Green Berets with John Wayne from 1968, Ah Boys to Men 3 Frogmen fails to build any significant suspense. The various short episodes lack coherence and do little to contribute to a larger story. While there is some character development, it suffers from the lack of a consistent story line. This means that the various characters have little contribution to the conclusion of the movie. In fact, I felt quite happy that the movie was finally over.

Overall, the movie feels like a overly long commercial for the Naval Diving Unit (NDU) which shows it in a very good light. The product placement for companies such as Bread Talk and KPMG, also feels like commercial breaks rather than fitting to the overall story. This is perhaps not surprising that the sponsorship comes clear at the end of the movie when the list of sponsors is presented.

This movie has a few funny moments but I think it is more geared toward young kids than older viewers. While the lead character is very similar in appearance and style to Shrek, this movie cannot even closely reach the depth and quality of story-telling.

The Croods feels like a jump and run computer game, where you are constantly running from one challenge to the next. The action is exaggerated which appeals to young viewers. It reminds me a little of classic cartoons where the characters suffer great pain but are not really harmed. This, in my opinion, is OK for a short cartoon but gets annoying in a long movie like this.

It is an okay movie but certainly not as great as the present ranking suggests. I would go for 2 out of 4 stars.

While others have compared this movie to Kung Fu Panda, I decided to watch this on its own merits, especially since I am quite fascinated by Chinese culture. Unfortunately, the bland animation did not make this movie particularly interesting. The characters are poorly drawn and cannot get the sympathy of the audience. The jokes are so stilted it is too silly. The story line is rather boring and not moving. Maybe it can be interesting for young children but the movie has certainly no appeal to adults at all. The only good thing I could find was the music but it does not fit to the movie and thus cannot salvage the otherwise poor production.

This movie is indeed a modern reboot of the Star Trek series. It is so fast-paced that you almost never get a second to calm down. Even when Kirk is lost on a planet, a monster has to appear and chase him. Perhaps it is a sign of age but I enjoyed those movies more that could build suspense without always having to move so fast. I prefer the timing of older Star Trek or Star Wars movies. I am in my early 30s and almost feel old if that's what today's movies should be like.

Acting was good and the story was interesting. However, I do not see why so many Star Trek movies (including this one) must use time-traveling and eternally evil people who want to destroy the universe. It is no longer all that original. But perhaps a more mundane plot would not excite fans as much, I wonder? I do not think that this movie is a masterpiece and neither is it a failure. It is just an average action movie that Star Trek fans and teens and people in their twenties will enjoy. However, this is not a movie for everybody. If you like lot's of explosions and fast-paced action, this is a must see.

This Star Trek movie is the best fan produced Star Trek feature that I have seen. Others have lacked such great acting and screen writing. This picture has a marvelous script and a truly exciting plot. It brings back lot's of memories of the original show. The movie may lack sophisticated CGI but, instead of being a downside, it actually adds a certain flavor to this movie. I found this very refreshing and actually pretty cool.

I especially liked the performance of Nichelle Nichols, which brought enormous depth to the Star Trek adventure. Also Walter Koenig's performance was superb! A nice treat was also the appearance of Tuvor as played by Tim Russ, who is also a very good director. He can really play the good and bad guy at once. The story of family and the idea of interracial marriage was what made Star Trek so unique in the first place. This is a great tribute to the creator of the Star Trek universe Gene Roddenberry.

Overall this is really an enjoyable movie, perfect for a romantic evening. Especially funny is the appearance of one of the Daily Show reporters, Rob Corddry, who plays a similar character in this movie. This movie is not sophisticated picture, it is more on par with Dude, where's my car? which also starred Ashton Kutcher. Of course, as with all Hollywood movies of this kind, it is very predictable. But that's not the point. This movie has lot's of laughs with some pretty wacky scenes and a hilarious cast. There is only one flaw that I think is making me rate this movie lower than I would otherwise have done: It is the racist depiction of Asians: The beautiful Michelle Krusiec is displayed as an extremely unlikable co-worker who is only interested in her career. This unfortunately alludes to a stereotype of Asians in America. As a suggestion for the future, I would like to see multi-ethnic casts also in the leading roles. Why give the lead roles to one ethnic group while allowing a multi-ethnic supporting cast?

This movie is certainly not worth watching. A pointless story about sex (and not love as the title suggests) is compounded by flat characters that populate a beautifully shot picture. While the scenery is very nice, the lack of skillful narration and superficial acting leave the movie goer empty. The storyline also sometimes gets lost so that I had the urge to leave the movie theater at times and wished the movie would end soon. The story tells of a married woman who falls for an old man because he is attractive. However, this attraction seems to be merely physical. Why would a woman give up her life for the mere thrill of sex? The movie shows that all the characters have some kind of psychological problem (be it the woman's obsession or the other characters' emotionless behavior). Even when the main character's father cries, this show of emotion seems shallow and fails to convince the viewer. In the end, this is a movie that aims to make the viewer think but fails because it makes one feel hopelessly lost in pointless dribble.

Perhaps I am not sophisticated enough to see this movie as a work of art but I believe that this movie is not worth all the great reviews. The characters are very weak and superficial. Many times it is really boring and long. There were a few funny scenes but I liked Bill Murray much better in Groundhog Day! I also thought this movie was disrespectful of Japan and Japanese culture, which we could hardly see. A little more attention to Japan and its people would have avoided the silly stereo-typing.

This movie really left me lost, not in translation, but in the movie theater. After watching this flick I asked me: Is that all there is?

What can I say? Totally confusing? That's how I felt all the way through the movie. I am not a fan of role plays, I have not read the books but I have seen Part 1, The Fellowship of the Ring, and I thought it was a good movie. The tricks and the atmosphere were great, but there the plot was also confusing. Perhaps you can't always make a perfect movie out of a book. In this case you need to make sense of so many things at once that it can be quite demanding. I simply don't care enough to learn about the seemingly limitless worlds in which the manifold characters live. Elves, gnomes, fairies, who can keep up with them? I like complexity but not in a fantasy world, but I don't remember when I have seen that on a screen. Moreover, a movie is for entertainment and I was only amazed at the quality of this second part so I could not even begin to grasp the highly confusing story! I think this movie is for experts and fans.

I have been very excited to watch Ice Age when I first saw the trailer. I thought this must be a cool movie, as much fun as Shrek or Monsters, Inc. I believe now that it was not as good as either, although Shrek is still my favorite. One idea was even almost the same as Shrek although Ice Age lacks the cool voices. The sloth's attempt to be the mammoth's friend is identical to the donkey's attempt to be Shrek's friend. It may be true that the writers/producers of this movie did not know of Shrek's story line but it still felt like a cheap way to make a movie with a similar theme. It is true that this movie may be more child friendly than Shrek but it also misses the edge and most of the humor of the other movie. The story is blatantly simple and reminds us of a cheap copy of lovely Disney movies. If you can avoid this computer animated feature, you won't miss anything. Actually the trailer was the best of the whole movie.