Reviews

If anyone had asked me exactly one year ago about my most anticipated movie of 2018, I probably would have answered David Robert Mitchell's "Under the Silver Lake". He directed one of my favorite horror films of this decade so far ("It Follows"), and this film stars Andrew Garfield, one of my favorite actors of his generation. What could possibly have gone wrong?

Well, just like it's the case with many other directors who came up with an immense hit for their first major film, Mitchell also struggled to come up with an equivalent amount of quality for his next feature film. It's not like his talent has vanished altogether; his style was even more prevalent in "Under the Silver Lake" and I absolutely fell in love with the directing, the atmosphere and his unmissable attention to details. However - and I don't like to write "however" in a review of a film I was so ready to love - all this doesn't help if the film a) has no plot whatsoever or b) has nothing to say whatsoever. And in this film, a) and b) were actually combined. It was really hard to follow the movie through its random segments, its messy, scrambled fragments and all the meaningless sex scenes. I am no prude at all, but throughout the first half of the film, to roughly 50% I was basically watching porn. There was so much room for scenes to be left on the cutting floor: there really wasn't any reason for "Under the Silver Lake" to be 140 minutes long.

The basic plot revolves around a vanished girl and a young, aimless man's quest to solve the mystery of her disappearance. (Some spoilers ahead.) I wouldn't have minded the lack of a resolution if the ending had been left somewhat ambiguous. But it wasn't, it was all explained, and absolutely none of it made ANY sense at all. I'm pretty sure the writers must have been on drugs, because there was no other way to come up with something so weird, senseless and dull. (End of possible spoilers.)

Frankly, the movie never became boring; there was always something to catch your interest. But the restless hope that all the scattered scenes would ultimately be woven together and suddenly all make sense again wasn't fulfilled. We were just left hanging in the air in the end, which is exactly what disappointed me so much. That doesn't mean, however, that I didn't also enjoy this film for what it was worth. The directing was exceptional and perhaps even better than in "It Follows". The cinematography by Mike Gioulakis is one of the best I have seen throughout the entire year. I loved the neo-noir atmosphere and the attention to all the classics of film history, from "How to Marry a Millionaire" over "A Farewell to Arms" to Hitchcock's classics (when in fact, the entire film could also work as a single homage to Hitchcock's works, especially the car chase scene which was obviously inspired by "Psycho", and the setting which was obviously inspired by "Rear Window"). The score was amazing and another great aspect about the film. The acting was also pretty solid, with Andrew Garfield being the obvious stand-out.

Overall, I can't say I didn't enjoy "Under the Silver Lake"; I had been anticipating to watch it for a long time and was more than excited when it was finally released to German cinemas. Watching it in a cinema only enhanced the experience from a technical view-point, as the visual as well as the sound-technical work were some of the best I have seen this entire year, but the lack of a better screenplay cannot be replaced by the benefits of great technical work alone, and so I can't help but feel like this was a disappointment. My only hope is that David Robert Mitchell's next work will be more coherent and a return to form again, because he certainly has the potential and the talent for more.

Just a few months ago, I watched the first few episodes of "Master of None" on Netflix, but didn't immediately get hooked and somehow lost interest, even though I liked the premise and considered Aziz Ansari's comedic timing as terrific. Now I decided to give this show another chance and was immediately invested into the comedic and socially critical elements of the writing; but that's not the show's only strength: the acting is great, the production is good for a comedy show of its kind and the humor is fantastic: not quite as obvious as it would have to be for regular viewers, but rather a little more subtle, enough so that it's probably not really suited for a mainstream audience who would rather enjoy something like "The Big Bang Theory" or "Two and a Half Man".

"Indians on TV" was the best episode of the series so far. I laughed out loud more than just a number of times, but that's not even close to the best thing about it, no: the writing was excellent. While tackling a number of controversial subjects in relation to casting procedures in the business as well as the way ethnic minorities are dealt with on the casting bench, this episode never lost its touch with reality and remembered to reveal both sides of the story: not just the ones suffering from discrimination or racism, but also those responsible for it, consciously or not. One main problem dealt with in this episode is the fact that show producers often shy away from giving more than one Asian/African/etc. actor a prominent role on a show with a limited amount of main cast members - and I love the way "Master of None" not only criticizes this fact, but also shows exactly how to include more than one main actor who isn't white. This is how it's done, and this is how you implement good writing on your show. Well done.

"Big Little Lies" is a brilliantly addictive adaptation of Liane Moriarty's source material which I am going to have to check out as soon as possible after watching this series. Starring Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Shailene Woodley, Laura Dern, Zoë Kravitz and Alexander Skarsgård among others, "Big Little Lies" certainly benefits from its brilliant cast, but it's the sharp and clever writing which really allows this series to feel like a true success. Its unraveling was done so cleverly that I could not stop watching and, as rarely as I can be found binge-watching any series, I watched all seven episodes with only a small interruption because I was starving and had to give myself a little break from watching these interesting characters in their not-so-normal lives. In my opinion, in most cases a mini-series should be left completed upon its last episode in order to avoid ruining it, but in this case, I certainly would not mind watching a second season and following the lives of these women for another ~seven episodes. Their stories are not completed yet and there is still a lot of conflict left unresolved, so it would be amazing to be able to follow them for a second season. However, even if the announced second season does not end up happening, I will be happy and content with the way "Big Little Lies" turned out to be: it's pure perfection in its own merits.

The plot works great by using a very interesting formula: take the lives of several characters who appear to be so perfect and oh-so-normal from the outside, and throw them into a difficult situation in order to reveal their true characters by showing how they deal with the situations, and then reveal the dark secrets shadowing their seemingly perfect lives. It's a formula which could not have worked better, though one thing certainly helped: the fact that the actors were so great. On the show's forefront was the groundbreaking performance from Nicole Kidman, who grows so much into her role she becomes almost inseparable from Celeste Wright. Alexander Skarsgård is frightening in his role as Celeste's husband Perry. Other outstanding cast members are Reese Witherspoon, who nails her part of the perfect wife and mother, Laura Dern, Adam Scott and Shailene Woodley, who may finally have proved herself to be more than just an actress for mainstream audiences.

I personally loved "Big Little Lies", and as long as you don't need your characters to be perfectly likable, you will like it as well. Apparently most people who gave the series a negative review on this website reduced their reviews to basically saying this was boring crap because the characters were too self-centered - well, maybe then this show may not be for you if you can't take a story which might have been taken out of real life, because self-centered people like the characters portrayed in this show live all around the planet. What the show did so great was to paint these characters in such an interesting light anyway that you still could not help but root for these women.

"Dolores Claiborne" is an intriguing adaptation of Stephen King's fascinating novel, featuring a terrifying and thought-provoking account of a middle-aged woman's complex and tragedy-ridden life. Kathy Bates superbly portrays Dolores Claiborne, the main character whose marriage, work life, motherhood and subsequent years after the unfolding of the events depicted in the movie are the film's central frame. We see Kathy Bates as a young mother and maidservant for the difficult Vera Donovan, who is portrayed by the great Judy Parfitt. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays Dolores' daughter Selena, a complex character with more facets than a first look would allow to notice. While John C. Reilly and Christopher Plummer play great supporting roles, it's David Strathairn who may be the most outstanding supporting actor in the movie, portraying a frightening version of Dolores' husband Joe.

Stephen King's novel may well be one of my personal favorite books, so it was only with great expectations that I started watching Taylor Hackford's interpretation of the story. Hackford changed a lot about the time line and added scenes including further confrontations between Selena and Dolores, but none of those decisions affected the movie in a negative way. The film mainly works thanks to the amazing performance of Kathy Bates, one of the best actresses working nowadays who deserves to be given more serious stuff in the vein of "Misery", "Fried Green Tomatoes" or "Dolores Claiborne" to work with. The story itself may be a rather ordinary one, but Stephen King made it work thanks to the unusual style of writing and one of his most memorable and most interesting narrators, and Taylor Hackford made it work thanks to casting Kathy Bates in this complex role.

It is my personal belief that "Dolores Claiborne" easily lives up to the reputation of another Stephen King classic starring Kathy Bates, "Misery". While the latter may be the more memorable movie, there is no doubt that both these movies (and novels) are incredibly well-written and turn a simply premise into an engaging and thrilling story. Even if you already know the plot from the beginning to the end - as you do by reading Stephen King's novel, where he establishes the main plot elements from the very beginning -, both the movie and the book will not stop being engaging until its very end, and in my opinion, that's what good storytelling is about. It may not be a masterpiece, but it is an underrated story more than deserving of your attention and your time.

Why did this movie need to be remade? I am not going to add anything to the comments already posted on IMDb, but this film infuriated me to such an extent that I can't keep myself from adding to the pile of negative reviews on here. I am a big fan of Hitchcock's original "Psycho", have seen it several times already and consider it as part of my top five favorite movies of all time. Anthony Perkins' acting was phenomenal in the original version. I even love "Bates Motel", the TV series adapted from Hitchcock's classic starring Freddie Highmore and Vera Farmiga, and Robert Bloch's source material. Not everything about the TV show may be perfect, but all of them, the film, the series, the book managed to captivate me to a certain extent, so much that the story of Norman Bates, whether he is portrayed by Anthony Perkins or Freddie Highmore, has not been able to let me go ever since I first watched Hitchcock's "Psycho".

This remake directed by Gus Van Sant, the director who also brought us some great movies such as "Good Will Hunting", "Milk", "To Die For" or "Finding Forrester", butchers the original story even though each shot, each movement, each line, each part of the soundtrack is almost exactly the same. Regarding it through the technical perspective, this movie remains faithful to the original version, yet it lacks so much more. The coloring feels out-of-place and distracting, especially if you consider how perfectly the black-and-white coloring worked in the original. And the acting should not even be talked about; it's that bad.

I watched the remake mainly because Viggo Mortensen, Julianne Moore and William H. Macy star in it, all of whom are actors I respect highly and enjoy to watch on my screen. They made me think, how bad could this movie be? Critics were not as harsh with this movie as I imagined, so I decided to give it a chance and build my own opinion. In fact, neither Mortensen and Moore nor Macy were terrible at all; they all did a decent job at portraying their characters (even though it felt at some times like Julianne Moore was overacting a bit), but those are more or less the only positive things which can be said about the film. The main reason for why this movie failed may well be the horrendous acting skills of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn. Whereas Perkins (and Highmore in the 2013 TV series) both succeed in portraying Norman's nervousness to perfection and presenting Norman as a multi-layered character, Vince Vaughn just ... just fails utterly. Not a single line which comes out of his mouth feels credible throughout the course of the movie, and perhaps even more importantly, you never catch yourself thinking, "how can this man do such horrible things?", as I (and probably everyone else) did upon watching the original movie. Vaughn plays Norman Bates like someone would play him in a parody, painting a stereotypical serial killer without the characteristic elements which made Anthony Perkins' version of Norman Bates such an extraordinary performance.

In addition, to put it mildly, Anne Heche cannot act. In the 1960 film, the shower scene shocked me, it made me feel disgusted and overwhelmed and intrigued by Hitchcock's directing skills at the same time. In this film, the only thing I felt was relief that it was Anne Heche's final moment in the movie, as horrible as that sounds. It's a shame that the people responsible in Hollywood for all the remakes of beloved classics seem to think that young people nowadays don't watch those old movies anymore, and thus decide to remake them to make them more accessible. In most cases, those remakes simply do not work (there are exceptions, of course, but they are rare treasures among all the nonsense), and "Psycho" may be the prime example for this. You would be better off watching the original, reading Robert Bloch's novel or, if you want to see a more modern, a more timely adaptation of the story, then you should turn on "Bates Motel". The 1998 version of the story should simply be avoided like the plague.

Just like almost every other horror movie of its sub-genre, "Leatherface" is a movie which concentrates on bringing as much gore and blood to the screen as possible, yet leaving the story and the characters rather thin and uninteresting. Practically from the beginning, "Leatherface" is all about the bloodshed, without ever allowing any real suspense to kick in because the movie never chooses the unforeseeable path, but instead teases its twists in such a predictable way that viewers shouldn't be surprised or particularly shocked anymore.

I have seen two previous movies of the "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" franchise, including Tobe Hopper's original movie from 1974 as well as the 2003 version produced by Michael Bay. The original movie was a masterpiece of classic horror, whereas Bay's version (as much as I usually dislike any movie with Michael Bay's name attached to it) was able to stand on its own feet by introducing a more than chilling atmosphere and focusing on the suspense and the anticipation of the events to follow. In my personal opinion, horror movies should always be mostly about the suspense, especially if the story lacks complexity. In order for suspense to work, a film has to make its viewers care for its main characters, which simply didn't work at all in this addition to the franchise surrounding the character of Leatherface. None of them were particularly interesting in any regard, and aspects such as character development were neglected completely.

The cinematography was intriguing, though perhaps not as great as in the 2003 version which managed to stand out of its genre partly thanks to the visual aspects. If you compare "Leatherface" to the other movies of its franchise, it is quite obvious that it can't live up to possible expectations. Even if it shows the potential to rise above its limitations now and then, the movie remains shallow and follows the standard procedures of horror flicks. There is nothing bad about that; after all, if you like slasher movies, like to turn your brain off and just enjoy the film for what it is, you will have a good time with "Leatherface". It is not particularly groundbreaking, though that probably could not have been anyone's expectation anyway.