Change Your Image
benedikt-entner
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Obi-Wan Kenobi (2022)
Hang on to the end, it gets better.
Don't let the negative reviews blind you. This show by no means deserves a 1 or 2 star rating, on the contrary, it is surely a better than average show and far from being garbage. As to this day, it stands on 8
stars for me.
It depends, if you are a Star Wars fan and maybe what type of Star Wars fan. Everyone feels the same on "The Mandalorian" - great show. Episodic adventures are more easy to write than a show on characters, that we as an audience know the arc and outcome of each and every one character. That is a given detriment fort Obi-Wan Kenobi, but the show finds good balance in regards of what they could do with these predetermined story lines.
It's less action driven than Mandalorian and the pacing especially in the beginning is quite slow, which can be off-putting for some. When you reach Episode III things definitly pick up.
What stands out for me is Ewan McGregors
performance, once again playing Obi Wan and also bridging nicely to Alec Guiness performance, because you can clearly see a lot of Ben Kenobi's demeanor in his act.
Leia's actress is also very well casted and her dialogue is very much the tongue in cheek Leia we know from the older films.
With our baddies, I don't get the hate on "The Third Sister", she has clear motivation and I can't say her line delivery is bad, mind you that I am watching the series dubbed in German. Her performance is adequate, and she is not a bad character. Let's see where her arc goes, because my guess is, there will be a backstory reveal in one of the later episodes.
Overall the series manages to create a great atmosphere, that very much reminds of older Star Wars games. From a cinematic standpoint they crafted great scenes, neat little details and some nice concepts (for example the side character of a "jedi imposter") All in all it shows me, that the writers are certainly not braindead hackfrauds.
If some character decisions in the plot seem far fetched, I would say, everything is still in the realm of plausable, and I mean it is Star Wars, so basicly a giant Space Opera. Not everything in Episode IV-VI have mad sense, if you would go through it, questioning every decision along the way. Han Solo for example or the attack on the Death Star itself.
The only complaint: 10 year old children cannot outrun grown man, and also as a princess would be well guarded at any times. That was one of the weaker scenes (without giving too much away) I would say the rest is very enjoyable.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
And that is not Star Wars
The main problem lies within the structure: every character follows its own storyline and very thinly was the movie connected. The story didn't feel contained; it was meandering through different settings, without proper time to breath between the different locations and scenes. For example the first scene was barely connected with the rest of the movie. It was a good action sequence though
I would say there was material for 3 or 4 movies in that film. And it felt rather episodic. But that is not what I wanted. And that is not Star Wars. It is hard to capture the essence of Star Wars. TLJ didn't feel like Star Wars. It felt more like a James Bond or a Marvel's movie. Every character had its own little mission. They tried to pull the strings of many different locations and several protagonists together. Lots of things feel shoe-horned in like Benicio Del Toro's character, Snoke, Finn's romance, C3PO, BB-8
I wish that TLJ would have put more focus on the main characters Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren, and their interactions, and the scenarios would have been more laid out to us. There is little to no time to breathe between the scenes, which can be both seen as good and bad: Good if you are in for a rollercoaster type of experience. Bad if you like clear focus on the main plot points. There is no main protagonist, and it kind of feels like the characters separated more than they united before, which is unfortunate.
It tries hard to be epic, but not effortlessly. For the longest Star Wars movie it feels rushed. It is a solid action movie. 7/10
Snowpiercer (2013)
People who don't like this movie...
Are like people criticizing Dali's paintings for being out of proportion. This is exactly what makes the movie great and in my opinion different than other films. At some points the film has more style than substance, but it also serves you a surrealistic undertone instead.
I can understand why people don't like Snowpiercer. The ending was a bit weak, mainly because our protagonist and antagonist don't come to a revelation, there is no real showdown, no disclosure, the train blows up and we never know what would have happened.
I think this is why people don't find a conclusion and therefore give the film so much hate.
But it had good characters, nice visual work and the creativity spoke for itself. It was entertaining, and it does not require realism for it, so I give it a solid 7.
Krabat (2008)
Epic and fantastic. Not.
I have never seen a movie with such an overuse of voice-off. At least 10 times (and I am not exaggerating) there is some guy mumbling about "Krabat doing this, Krabat doing that..." Sometimes stuff that could have been easily displayed in some scenery, for example "Krabat is hardworking, others are lazy...this guy right here, he is very strict" Fine shut up already and just show it. A Narrating voice from the off should be used sparely and mostly to give interesting information or meaningful insight. As a part of narration, a stylistic element, not as a substitute of narration, which I call lazy and bad filmmaking.
Speaking about that, the fighting scenes were filmed and cut so poorly that it was a pain to watch. I thought they are disappointing at best, especially for a film that wants to be epic. It takes more than a shaky cam to create a good fighting scenery.
And thats the next thing: the film tries hard to be epic, but fails hard in achieving it. The story is not that bad, nor are the actors, but I think Krabat would have been much better if produced as a TV series. The source material would have been perfect.
Some young men who are ordinary apprentice lads are getting trained to become powerful wizards. This training should be interesting, you may think, but yawn all we see are some guys with wooden staffs. There is no exciting arc for the characters, Krabat and the others don't seem to change very much, even since they are wizards.
And what is there motive? Why is Krabat even there? Because he followed a raven? I know he shook the hand of the sorcerer and now he is bound to him, but why does the sorcerer train all this young lads? For what purpose? What is his plan... is it for fun or does he want to achieve something? So many questions, so less answers.
At some point I didn't care anymore, I am sure there is an answer somewhere, but it is not illustrated very well in this film.
Overall a waste of good actors and a potentially great TV series.
3/10
Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)
An overrated dog movie
I like dogs, but I also appreciate good film making. Without spoiling I am safe to say, the best thing about this movie was the end. There is something wrong with a movie, if the last scene is emotionally most touching and it contains text. Text about the real events that are portrayed in the film (another example would be "Black Hawk Down")
Everything before was mildly interesting. I was surprised to find out Lasse Hallström directed this, who is most famous for "Chocolat" and "The Cider House Rules". I must say I am not a big fan of his work, I thought some kind of indie, amateur or semi professional cinematographer filmed this. Hachi was released in 2009, why does it looks 15 years older? The film must have been on low budget? The camera equipment seams poor and everything including the soundtrack feels cheap. Containing the same monotonic piano strumming throughout the whole movie. Sometimes Hachi would have been better without, especially towards the end. you hear more or less the same tune in every scene, and it gets repetitive.
The story is based on a true and mildly interesting story, unfortunately the storytelling has some major flaws. You don't get to know much about the characters, they are only sketches. But let's start with the beginning: a Japanese monk decides to send a dog puppet to the United States of America. Obviously lots of Japanese monks to that. The movie explanation is rather stupid: it must have been fate. Hachi and Gere meet each other at the train station.
The story: Gere's grandson is telling the story of Hachi in his school as his "personal hero". Later on we find out, that his own family didn't care about Hachi at all. After Gere's character dies and things don't work out well with the family dog Hachi, they put him outside the house and the dog runs away, out of frustration.
The family should perfectly know where he is. After all he went to the train station everyday to meet with his owner. Everyone in town knows where Hachi is, and it was even in the news. Still they never look after him. Couldn't they at least bring him some food. They don't seem to care. Remember the first scene? Hachi is supposedly some kind of "hero" for the family.
Another point is, Hachi decides to abandon his supposedly caring and loving family and he is suffering. No dog would do that, not to a certain degree. Not under that weather conditions, not when it is freezing cold and there is no food, not if he still has a home place and people that would provide for him. Why didn't he return to sleep or eat, rather be miserabe?
After several years Hachi is found at the train station by Gere's widow. Didn't she knew from her daughter or the news or friends? Is she surprised that the dog is still alive?
In the next scene the family is sitting all together inside of their cozy house again. But not with Hachi. They look at family albums with pictures of Hachi, but the the dog is still outside. How cynical is that? The dog is still out there, dieing in the cold, alone, why don't you take him home you heartless bastards, you monsters.
Last scene Hachi dies.
Like another reviewer wrote: Hachi is nothing more than a 90 minute soppy TV commercial with doggy in the rain and family albums, Christmas, couples, happiness and heaven, and not much else.
It is not a bad movie though compared to other "dog movies", it shows the loyalty of a dog and that he always waits for you when you come home, to be fair, from all the dog movies I have seen so far, Hachi is still the best. 6/10
Unbreakable (2000)
Best of both. Willis and Shyamalan.
Some people state Shyamalan recycled "The Sixth Sense" for this film. A mysterious plot, check, Bruce Willis takes the leading role, check, and a twist at the end, check. But the movie is more than that. In my opinion this is Shyamalan's best work so far. I still regret how biased everyone is after the 6th Sense and what a pity, this movie was not made before the other one. There is a "prequel-sequel thing" going on, people don't recognize how great and fresh this movie actually is. It is not a remake. Go see this movie unbiased and if you pay attention to the details, you may be surprised how good it actually is.
Visually I am very attracted to this movie. The camera work is great. But Unbreakable is also a fine character study with subtle and good acting. The script reveals a real arc for every character, especially for the protagonist. In addition Willis performance in this movie is in my humble opinion one of his - if not his very best.
Unbreakable has everything, structure, great acting, a simple story, a fitting score and camera work with masterful use of the color palette. The twist at the end is just a bonus and pay off, but it doesn't make the movie what it is, the tone nails it for me.
Bruce Willis is the hero, who leads a double life (within his family) and has to fight against two villains. Unbreakable is a "real life" adaption of a superhero's tail. The plot is set in a serious, realistic environment.
The characters has interesting costumes, as explained in the film commentary, the filmmakers used certain colours for an analogy. Green is our hero, an equally balance colour in the middle of the colours spectrum, a mixture between blue and yellow. It represents our superhero's virtues, intelligence and strength. Blue is intelligence, yellow is strength, you mix these colours with red and you end up with the villains coloures.
Blue mixed with red violet, and yellow plus red equals orange. Red is representing evil.
One of the villains is evil minded and genius, and the other one is quite the opposite, a no- brainer who uses brutal force. Violet and Orange are two colours on opposing sites of the colors spectrum. Very subtle. It is interesting they put this alegory in there.
Doesn't make the movie any better, because most people won't notice it. What I find compelling about the story is that you learn everything from Samuel Jacksons character's perspective. In the beginning you hear his dubious explanations and you start to wonder and believe him. At the same time you doubt it more and more and finally you get to realize how insane Jackson's perspective really is.
9/10
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Silence of the Lambs for children
I am judging movies on what they suppose to be. I know, this is a film designed to appeal to children. But I have some issues with The Rescuers Down Under.
It particularly disturbed me as a child, so I would not recommend it as a children movie. Mainly because the plot itself is not very suitable for a children's movie. A mentaly unstable guy hunts animals, he is looking for rare animals to imprison them and sell them for money. And one day he finds a little boy entrapped in one of his animal traps. The boy is now a witness of his criminal activity, so he decides to kidnap him... Thats good material for a thriller or action movie
The boy gets imprisoned in an animal cage like all the animals. Silence of the Lambs 2, isn't it? He is far away from home and his family. Are you entertained yet?
After all the boy manages to escape with the help of the famous two mice. In the grand finale the villain tries to feed off the little boy to wild crocodiles.
Whats the lesson here for children? Be aware of psychopathic kidnappers?
Fortunatly the bad guy drowns "by accident". He drowns and it is over. What have we learned children? Australia is not a safe place? Be aware of kidnappers? Don't go outside.
If you are lucky and a kidnapper catches you, he will have an "accident". If not, you may never see your family again.
Braveheart (1995)
Americans love their "freedom"
The story deals with the Scottish historical figure William Wallace, and is spiced up with medieval "heroism". Selfless fighting for freedom against the evil English oppressor. In addition to that we get two shallow romantic side plots. Wallace is an admired war hero and also he is a womanizer. Yikes. At one part he is having a cheesy romantic affair with no other than the french princess. Wait, what? Not only completely irrelevant for the story, William Wallace is supposed to be seeking vengeance for his murdered wife. He loved her so much that he picked up the fight against the English army in the first place. So it is his main motivation throughout the film and now he is banging the french chick?
And I don't have a problem with graphic violence, but Braveheart has some moments of unreflected gruesomeness here and there. He burns down a shack with soldiers trapped inside, he smashes a guys face laying in his bed, while is screaming and begging for mercy. "BADOOCH". Spike mace right in his face.
Afterwards he jumps out of the castle window into a giant lake with his horse. Good chances to get crushed, dumbass. Still can not believe it won 5 Academy Awards.
The movie is well executed but with these unnecessary "soap opera" elements in it and the five Academy Awards including Best Picture I come to the conclusion the film is overrated. One of the best movies ever made? Not really. I would give "Braveheart" a 7 out of 10, if it wasn't for the historical inaccuracy, that goes on in that film. Someone who has basic knowledge of medieval history can be offended. I don't expect it to be historical correct, if the plot holds up for it, which is not the case for me, so it ends up on a 6