Reviews

This movie is neither horror, nor comedy, nor anything else. It is simply boring with a plot that makes zero sense.

A rich couple invites their old school mates plus partner and kids to a Christmas party in the country. It soon becomes apparent that something is off. It turns out that a poisonous cloud is moving over the world that kills everything in its way in a horrendous way. To let people die 'with dignity' the UK government has issued every citizen a suicide pill for a painless death. The night, that is filled with personal drama, ends up with everybody dying from the pill except one.

At no point is the movie particularly funny. The dialogues are superficial and really boring, the characters come across as so self-centered and petty, I was almost relieved to see them pop their pill.

But what bugs me most is the idiocy of the plot. We are left wondering what this poisonous cloud actually is, where it comes from, and why it is able to rummage over the entire planet, why it is accompanied with mini tornadoes and thunderstorms. I later read that this is some analogy to climate change. Well if it is, it is the most stupid one I've ever seen. What cloud system can move over the entire planet carrying poison without dissolving at some point? And even if we accept this completely bonkers plot element that defiles every law of physics, it still does not explain the government's policy of killing off the entire population. Weather systems move slowly, why do they not evacuate people? And even if this wasn't possible, why do they not provide shelter rooms? And if even this was impossible, why not provide people with gas masks and protective gear? If they can pull off sending pills to every citizen of the UK, surely they could pull off the other measures.

The last straw that kills the plot completely is the company these people chose for the last night of their lives. If you knew for a while that you gonna die on a certain date, would you seriously invite/visit people who are getting on your nerves instead of close and beloved family members like your elderly parents? Instead of spending quality time with your kids, would you sit with 'friends' bickering over failed romances during your high school days? Really? This seems so unrealistic, I cannot buy it which means that this is the last element that completely kills the plot.

In summary not a watchable film, without any redeeming quality. If I have to switch off my brain completely to watch a film that defiles any logic and has plot holes larger than a moon crater, I can no longer enjoy the experience.

I really liked the movie, it is a very interesting portrayal of a horrible time with horrible crimes committed and viewed from a perspective that is seldomly taken up by Nazi movies.

Viggo Mortensen plays the main character very convincingly. I only had one issue with him in the role. He looks so incredibly Danish that he never fully convinced me in the role of a German Nazi. 😄 But this is just a minor issue.

However, I think the topic of the movie goes much deeper than the Nazi regime. In fact it addresses the value of life itself. The novel Huber writes about a husband killing his terminally sick wife, the Nazis who claim compassionate killing of an unworthy life is humane as shown by a hospital full of 'useless and suffering cretins', Huber's mother who is sick herself and tries to kill herself to unburden her son, Huber's neurotic and 'useless' first wife in comparison to the fertile youth and agency of his second, and finally the Endlösung, the complete eradication of Jewish life in Europe.

The movie brilliantly pictures what happens if we put an asterisk next to the value of life. It shows the slow transition from a romantic novel depicting the killing of a suffering person as an act of selfless love to the idea that extermination of an entire group of unwanted people can be justifiable. Because if we first accept killing as the rational, even compassionate, choice where do we draw the line? Who decides which life is worth living and which isn't? Whilst we would be ok with a loving husband making this choice for his wife, would we still be ok with a son who has to care for a sick parent, a doctor who cares for incurable patients, or a government who decides that certain groups are unwanted? I think this movie does a fantastic job of portraying the slippery slope of this line of thinking. Really well done.

OMG, where do I start. It's been a while since a movie made me laugh so much. Melissa McCarthy is absolutely and utterly hilarious in this movie. She really was spot on, her timing perfect, I enjoyed every minute of her acting. She nailed the role. In short she is comedy gold.

I also loved the satirical take of the James Bond & Co classics and how it poignantly exposes these classic spy movies for what they really are: misogynistic wet dream escapes for beta males - the butt hurt reaction in many reviews here prove this point to perfection.

McCarty's character is the complete anti-thesis to the sleek, marvelous looking, greater-than-life male spy characters we have been accustomed to. The evolvement of her character from the classic female supporter role, we also are accustomed to in fex. Ms. Moneypenny, to the bad-ass, hyper qualified spy, who still is not taken seriously by any of her colleagues despite of all her accolades, is unfortunately a role many women still can identify with, and it is a real treat to follow her metamorphosis. Which for me makes this one of the best movies I've ever seen.

So here's a tip, if you really enjoy watching classic spy movies, where women only act as eye candy or grey mice booking hotel rooms for the male super star, stay clear from this movie. If you are tired of the classic stereotypical spy movies and want to see a refreshing take on them, this is your film.

Really I want my money and time back for this piece of garbage movie. The quality of special effects was below the pain threshold, even by 1984 standards. And don't get me started on the acting. Schwarzenegger's robot performance with a total of maybe 10 lines was probably the most convincing acting in the entire movie. The rest of the cast was wooden to the point of amateurish.

And whoever thought of casting Linda Hamilton as the 'beautiful' leading lady, should get their head examined. Not only isn't she particularly pretty, which makes it ridiculous that men would fall for her left and right. But her mannerism, grimacing, constant screaming, weeping, and weak attitude was so provoking I started rooting for the terminator to finish her off in the end. What an absolutely annoying performance of a weak, dumb, and useless female lead. Seriously, how is this movie rated so high.

The one question that constantly popped up in my head while watching this imbecile story was why on earth do Americans seem so convinced that they are the laid-back, cool guys, although EVERYTHING about the US is more conservative and backward than in Europe, let alone the UK, which is one of the most liberal and yes - cool - countries on earth (and no, I am not British). I'm so sick of American stereotypes portraying the UK society as stiff, unfeeling, and trapped in a feudal system. It's ludicrous and has nothing to do with the reality of British culture and life today. And seriously Americans should take a deep long look in the mirror and ask themselves if their self-image of being the cool, liberal fun guys is still as accurate as they seem to think. From an outside perspective it surely doesn't look like it. Just saying.

Four stars for Collin Firth's and Anna Chancellor's performances, which at least managed to add some quality to the film. Seeing Collin Firth in leather pants discovering his inner rock star was a true leckerbissen.

No idea how people can feel entertained when so much about a story makes zero sense, but whatever.

I'm not an archeologist, but even to a layman like me, many things seemed quite implausible in this film, plus that as a European I constantly asked myself where exactly in Europe this was supposed to take place, as nothing seemed to match. Turns out the movie was mostly made in Canada, aha. But one has to give it to the makers of this flick, they were pretty persistent in their ignorance of basic facts, what they missed out on the archeological part, you can rest assured they didn't compensate for on the biological one. In a pack only the alpha male and alpha female mate. So it would be completely unlikely that Alpha would be chased away from the food by the other members in her pack AND be pregnant. If she was pregnant, that would mean she would be the alpha female and eat first, and if she wasn't allowed to eat first, she wouldn't be the alpha female and hence not be pregnant.

Secondly, if Alpha really happened to be the alpha female of her pack, it would have been impossible to tame her. So far it is assumed that humans were able to tame submissive wolves who remained at an immature stage in their social development. Experiments with young wolves have shown that they cannot be tamed if they undergo a normal social development. In other words, our dogs stem from socially handicapped or developmentally impaired wolves. They behave like wolf children all their life. The idea that an injured, fully mature and apparently dominant wolf grows attached to a human is touching in a Disney-ish way, but totally and utterly unrealistic.

I admit it point blank, I hate this movie. Not because it is a bad movie per se, it's well made, nothing exceptional, but good solid work. However, I absolutely loath the plot line and the loss of a chance that the makers didn't realise. The story is about a woman who - living during a time where female talent goes unnoticed - decides to work as a ghost writer for her husband, who, thanks to her exceptional talent, becomes a celebrated author, so celebrated that he is nominated for the Nobel price. Whilst being in Stockholm and having to endure the celebration of her husband's 'achievements', whilst having to present herself as the untalented good-for-nothing supportive wife, she cracks and threatens to leave him. Due to the shock, or whatever, the guy suffers his final heart attack and dies.

The couple is followed by a nosy biographer who suspects the dirty little secret and wants her to validate his insinuations. Even offering to take on the mantle of the discovery of the emperor's nakedness in order to finally make the world see who really deserves the credit. She keeps lying into his face until the bitter end to protect her late husband's legacy.

And THIS is the point which nauseates me. Over the last decade, there is an increasing body of evidence that proofs beyond doubt how path breaking contributions of female scientists have systematically been edited out by their male counterparts. Contributions that lead to several Nobel prices for their male superiors. it is without a doubt these stories that have spurred the plot line. But what kind of 'solution', what kind of 'role model' does the story give us? just shut up and put up with it, be the good little wifie who puts her own needs behind her husband's needs. A husband who has treated her with disdain and contempt. Just stoically endure the abuse and take pride in staying on the moral high ground, instead of giving him and the world the finger and take what is yours. Great, idea. Exactly this behaviour has brought women so far in life, NOT. It's a nauseating conclusion and message, and one that is totally out of touch with time. If this was meant as a feminist piece, well it failed, bigly. I'd say Wonder Woman did more for feminism than this artsy melodrama.

We watch Forks over Knives and are shocked, we watch documentaries over the genocide and wonder about the brutality of humans, and then there is this movie. It is by far the most disgusting thing I've seen in a long time. These parents are monsters and their passive spouses enablers.

Each and every one of these kids will end up on some therapist's couch later in life. They are the victims of the most abusive types of narcissists: fathers who use their children to elevate themselves, to validate themselves, and to compensate for their own insecurities. Their emotional involvement is only about themselves, hence, the anger and abuse once the 'tool', the child, does not comply and succeeds and who then call this 'love'. There is no kid that grew up under such circumstances that will not be messed up for life.

None of these parents should be anywhere near a child and kudos to the makers of this film to expose these people for what they really are.

I have very mixed feelings about this movie. The movie itself is great, it's beautiful, well-cut, entertaining, the story is well laid out, and the acting is great. If this movie was just trying to tell the story as is, it would be fine. Unfortunately it seems like they try to make a hero out of a very immature, very selfish, and - sorry - very, very silly young man.

I'm sure Christopher McCandless was a nice young man who is missed by his family, and I feel for their loss. But he was also an overly naive person who basically knew nothing of life but seemed to live under the illusion of possessing great wisdom. Well, if you know even a little bit about the wilderness, then you probably know that there is nothing romantic about it. Surviving in the wild is tough, requires a lot of knowledge and experience, and for us humans, often the help of other humans. And if you don't have all this, then at least have the brains to bring a compass and a map so that you find home again when the s*** hits the fan.

It somehow angers me that this movie tries to stylize this story as a romantic experiment accidentally gone wrong. No, the only possible outcome by default was that this will go wrong, period. Christopher McCandless was an irresponsible, naive young guy, who has needlessly killed himself and most probably brought a lot of pain over his family and friends. There is really nothing to admire here.

I say it upfront, coming from Europe I like Michael Moore, most probably because I share his political ideas. However I'm no die hard fan of his. I watched a couple of his documentaries and found them entertaining. Still, I was never one second in doubt that he bent the truth to fit his narrative in order to make the story more entertaining and to emphasize a certain point. Whoever takes Michael Moore's films literally and sees them as the beacon of truth is a fool. And as such I would describe this filmmaker couple of 'Manufacturing Dissent'.

The story strikes me as a film that starts out with two naive and blinded fans who end up butt hurt because they figure out that their huge idol is not as approachable as they thought. These people are two nobody's who stalk a very famous and probably very busy guy and get busted along the way, as most people would get busted if they started running after their famous idol. However, it seems they cannot accept that the mere fact that they decided to make a documentary on Michael Moore and them being Canadians doesn't open all doors to them. At some point they try to take unauthorized footage of one of his speeches and naturally get kicked out. They use this episode to claim that Moore prohibits their right of free speech? Sorry, what? First of all, what does filming have to do with free speech and, secondly, one cannot just walk into an event and film commercial material without seeking authorization first.

As the film progresses, the narrative becomes increasingly negative and they start to present themselves as victims shunned and threatened by the tough staff of Michael Moore, who out of some inexplicable reason doesn't want to talk to them, despite of them being Canadians, heaven forbid. Well, what about him being extremely busy at the time - to the point of total exhaustion, as he told many times in later interviews. The film is a long chain of complaints by people who hold a grunge against Moore out of various reasons, as well as footage from people who simply don't like him and his political agenda. Accusations are taken at face value and go totally unchecked, which makes the journalistic value of this documentary questionable and gives it a sensationalist underpinning.

Sure, Moore probably has a huge ego, which person working in the movie industry hasn't? Sure, Moore is probably no angel and being as exposed as he is, it's probably no too hard to find some people whose toes he stepped on. But to accuse him of manipulation of the same level as Nazi Germany's propaganda machine, to indicate he hurt the Kerry campaign through his documentaries and support, and thereby enabled Bush's reelection, is outright ridiculous and straps this documentary of the last rest of credibility.