bjoernidler's Reviews

All or Nothing: The German National Team in Qatar (2023)

8/10

I wished here were more episodes. But so does the team probably.

18 September 2023

I get why the All or nothing crew chose the german national team for this documentary. They failed miserably in Russia in 2018, Jogi Löw quit as headcoach. There was a good chance that under Hansi Flick, who had won the triple with Bayern a short time ago, this could turn into an interesting Rocky-like story. But things turned out differently, as is mentioned in the first minutes of the show. So this shouldn't spoil anyone.

I don't know if the true spirit of the team is shown here. You have to know that editing is everything in these kind of sports documentaries. By choosing the scenes, the way they are cut and the music the makers can make the team seem intact or not. The same goes for the players. Do they seem positive and funny or passive and arrogant?

But I'm going to write about what I saw since I don't know about the other filmed material.

Some positive things: Niklas Füllkrug is the real deal. He's confident, a teamplayer and has the most emotional speech in the locker room as a newcomer! Also, he didn't disappoint in the games.

Thomas Müller is a legend. He always gives everything although he is limited technically and physically. He is important for every team he plays in.

Filming was of high quality.

The episodes went by quickly and didn't bore me for a minute.

The stupid affair of the one love arm patch wasn't left out but didn't take up more time than neccessary.

I got the feeling that something was off in this team. It seems that Flick didn't reach the players completely. I also got the impression that too few of the players were willing to give this their all. Many seemed rather distant. And except for some players, they didn't seem to have too much fun as a group. Again, could be that it just isn't shown but that's my impression. It's also kind of sad that they had the feeling of not being supported from home. The World cup in Katar was a bad idea from my perspective. But the team still deserves support. If they give everything,that is.

This documentary isn't a heroes journey. It's a story of defeat. That makes it probably less fun to watch than other sports documentaries, but interesting none the less.

As I'm writing this, Hansi Flick was fired as coach about a week ago. Watching this documentary made me think that this was for the best. So I'm thankful for this insight.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Sopranos (1999–2007)

9/10

A review after having watched the whole series

5 September 2023

I don't believe in reviews that are written after only having watched 2 or 3 episodes. So I held back until having completed the series. This review is meant for people who are thinking about watching The Sopranos and want to know a little about what to expect.

What is it?

The Sopranos is a show about Tony Soprano, mobster from New Jersey, and his life, his family and his job. In the course of the show we also get to know the other persons in his life quite well. A huge part of the show is about Tony's attempt to balance his private life and being a Mafia boss, often with the help of his therapist, Dr. Melfi.

What's it like?

Imagine a soap opera. But imagine a soap opera with exceptional writing, great cinematogrophy, good acting, dark humour, lots of nudity and violence, constant swearing and great italian food.

Should you watch it?

Absolutely, if you don't have a problem with a rather slow narration tempo, story arcs over multiple episodes (and seasons) and the things I mentioned above. I'd suggest you watch 3 or 4 episodes. If you're into it by then, you will love the whole show.

I personally love The Sopranos for the grey areas between good and evil. The characters feel like real persons, they are more than just "the funny one", "the smart one" or "the sexy one". They make mistakes, they regret them, they try to make the best of their situation. No one kills just because they are bad guys. They all have their reasons, even if they may be hard to understand for me.

I subtracted one point because I had the feeling that the show dragged a little bit in the mid-seasons. But I stayed with it because I wanted to find out what happens to the people I love watching. And sometimes there are huge pay-offs and some genuine wtf-moments that you can look forward to.

Lastly, The Sopranos is truly groundbreaking for tv as we know it today. It started in 1999 when tv series were mostly episodic, tv actors were considered second rate and tv characters were mostly just good or bad. Its influence on current tv can't be overstated.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ms. Marvel (2022)

6/10

Phase IV is a mixed bag and so is this show.

14 August 2022

Ms. Marvel is about Kamala Khan, a teenage girl who has to cope with her new-found powers. The tone of the series is very light, there is lots of humour to be found. Personally, most of the jokes didn't really work for me. But then again, Ms. Marvel is meant to appeal to teenagers rather than to 35 year old men like me. Iman Vellani plays the lead role with infectuous joy and is really likable.

Unfortunately, I found the plot and the action a bit boring. So it's neither a great series nor really terrible. If you enjoy teenage comedies I'd definitely give it a try.

In the context of MCU Phase IV (which has its ups and downs) Ms. Marvel is one of the weaker shows. Let's wait and see how important her character will be in future movies or tv shows.

Most of the credit this show gets is for its depiction of a muslim girl with pakistani background. And that's not enough for me to make a show relevant. I think that Marvel is currently trying to include every possible ethnic group into the MCU and that's fine by me. The thing is that it feels forced in Phase IV.

MCU movies had terrible, weak female roles in Phase I and I think the producers bit their own behinds that DC had the first modern superhero movie with a female heroine that wasn't just there for eye candy. So of course Marvel had to improve on their diversity and gave us African, Asian-American, Latino and now Indian/Pakistani superheroes. It seems to be very important to some people that everybody is represented.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ethnic diversity. But as I said, in Phase IV it seems as if Marvel is more focused on ticking every box in the politically correct way and to include as many ethnic groups as possible than to give us intersting, epic stories like they did in Phase III especially.

I also don't get why Kamalas religion is so prominent in the show. Apart from the Norse religion (Thor!!), religion doesn't matter in the MCU and I appreciate that. We simply don't know if any heroes are atheistic, christian or jewish.

So I'm really hoping for a few less origin stories that try to please everybody and for more great epic tales that have a bit more grit and dirt under their feet.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

6/10

I wish I could love this movie more.

24 June 2021

Warning: Spoilers

I'm a big fan of both the LOTR and Hobbit books. I also love the LOTR-movies, they're among my favourites. So I thought hard why it's impossible for me to also love the Hobbit movies. I really tried to! All the right ingredients are there. But I can't. And here's why.

I don't have a problem with the inaccuracy and all the additional stuff that Jackson and his team put in the movie. I know that movies are always different from the books. If you want the book, read it and don't watch the movie.

If we're fair, the LOTR movies also took certain liberties, one of the most obvious being Frodo's age when he leaves the Shire. Tom Bombadil's part of the story was cut completely. You can't even find him in the Extended Cuts (which I generally recommend, even for the Hobbit movies).

My problem is the inconsistency of the storytelling in the Hobbit movies.

It was Peter Jackson's goal to link all six movies closely together. So he chose to transform the children's book into movies that should feel kind of similar in tone. And I think that is where he failed. Let me give some examples.

1.) Comedy I think this is due to make the movie kid-friendly. There are scenes in this movie that are supposed to make you laugh But it feels forced. In the LOTR the humour felt more heartfelt and therefore more real (Gimli, Merry and Pippin). Here, the humour is sometimes painfully silly (Alfrid, some actions of the dwarves during battle...)

2.) Serious stuff On the other hand this movie wants to be quite dark and grisly. There is a lot at stake here. I mean, look at the title of the movie! Thorin fights for his soul. We deal with heavy loss for everybody. And that's great! But it doesn't work tonally! Think of the biggest battles of LOTR (Helm's Klamm and Pelennor fields). Those battles were bad-ass! We were invested with the characters because we feared that everybody could die. It was just a terrible battle.

In this movie, the battle sometimes feels serious, then we get some "funny" deaths and decapitations, creative ways to kill orcs, the more serious stuff, sometimes more brutal than LOTR, more funny stuff... As I said: Inconsistent!

3.) Characters vs. Super heroes

I can't get invested in the characters here, because they don't feel real. They feel like super heroes!

In the LOTR, Legolas and the whole fellowship had to work together to kill ONE cave troll in the mines of Moria. Here, Legolas single-handedly kills about 400 orcs sometimes in gravity defying manner. Did he lose these moves after this movie before meeting again at Elrond's council in LOTR? Maybe he got old?

Somewhere between Hobbiton and Erebor also the dwarfves have developed super powers. When about 12(!) dwarves finally join, they turn the battle of 10000s of warriors around. Come on!

In the LOTR, Aragorn needed an army of THE DEAD to defeat the orcs. Here, some motivated dwarves are enough to turn the tide.

I mean, these are some dwarves and not the Avengers! So this makes it hard for me to root for them because they don't seem real. I was surprised that some of them actually COULD die.

4. Over the top

Last point. In LOTR, there were awesome set pieces and action scenes. Why were they great? Because they held the balance between being outrageous and realistic.

In this movie, everything is over the top. Bigger is better, right? No, it's not. We're invested in action that at least FEALS realistic in the context of the movie. The set design, the costumes, the details, everything feels real, everything draws you in. But the action doesn't. The action screams 'Hey, look at this! Can you believe that? Look what cool stuff BArd/Legolas/Tauriel/the dwarves are doing!' The setting is absolutely realistic, the action isn't for the most part.

So, there are some awesome scenes in this movie, as in the other Hobbit movies. I especially liked some smaller, emotional scenes like Thorin fighting with dragon sickness or Gandalf and Bilbo silently smoking a pipe in the aftermath of the battle. But as I tried to explain, the movie is so unbalanced and inconsistent in its story-telling, too much like the Avengers and too over the top to make me love it. Although I really tried and watched it several times now.

20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Outsider (2020)

8/10

Should you watch The Outsider?

8 January 2021

The Outsider is a 10 episode show by HBO that is based on the novel by Stephen King. It follows the book quite accurately. So if you've read the book, you're in for a treat.

The pacing is quite slow. Some reviewers commented on that. But don't let that keep you away from the Outsider. Instead of fast-paced storytelling we get to know the characters really well, see them in their surroundings. That's why we feel more for them, when something bad happens to them and are afraid for them. And lots of bad things do happen.

The acting is excellent throughout. Especially Ben Mendelsohn, Cynthia Erivo and Paddy Considine are great. But the other actors play their chatacters convincingly too.

The story is really finished after the 10 episodes. Some people commented on how the ending of the show was anti-climactic but I disagree. We get to see the final confrontation and also the aftermath of it. I liked that we don't leave the action directly after the showdown. Life doesn't end after an important event. The important thing is how we move on after such an event and keep living our lives. The Outsider gives us an idea how the characters will cope in the future.

And yes, The Outsider is mysterious but not very scary.

So, should you watch it?

Yes, if you are into character driven drama, if you like a good mystery that is actually cleared up, if you enjoy good acting, if you don't mind a slower story-telling, if you like shows like Twin Peaks.

No, if you look for jump scares, if you look for a horror series like Supernatural or movies like Insidious, if you have a short span of attention and if you think Stephen King just stands for angry clowns.

Personal note: I wish HBO would take on "The dark tower" and turn it into a proper tv series. I'd love to see the result by the filmmakers who made The Outsider.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Suspiria (I) (2018)

8/10

It's something else

22 November 2020

I'll keep this review brief and won't go into plot details. Other reviewers gave good summaries already. So I'll stick to my impression and give a recommendation.

People often complain that movies today are too stream-lined or just more of the same. Well, Suspiria is definetely unique, whether you love or hate the movie for it.

It is divided into 6 acts and an epilogue. The run-time is 152 minutes. What movie loosely connected to the horror-genre dares to be so bold?

There are long passages where nothing really important happens but the overall feeling, if you remain open towards the movie, is always eerie, unsettling, sometimes frightening. But to me it was always at least interesting.

The visual quality and sound of Suspiria is staggering. The dance scenes are filmed exquisitely and I loved that you could hear the dancers breathe, sigh, grunt... These dances were not beautiful but almost violent and I think the sound design captured that beautifully. And of course there's Thom Yorke's haunting and sometimes hypnotic soundtrack which adds to all that.

I wouldn't recommend Suspiria to fans of The Conjuring and the likes. This is no traditional horror film. When I watched it, I was much more reminded of movies like Midsommar, David Lynch-movies or maybe even classics like 'Don't look now' or 'Rosemarie's Baby'. All those films also have the same unsettling and disquieting mood of foreboding evil that Suspiria also possesses. So if you're a friend of the movies I just mentioned, yoz should definetely give it a try. You might enjoy it immensely.

6 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous (2020–2022)

4/10

I wanted the kids to get eaten...

19 September 2020

This series takes place before the events of the first Jurassic World film. It's about an adventure camp on Isla Nublar that has not yet been opened for the general public and is "tested" by some specially selected kids, of course ethnically diverse because this is a show from 2020. Having arrived at the camp, adventure begins.

The animation is quite good. It looks like a little more care was taken of the surroundings and the dinosaurs than the human characters. But I don't mind that because they aren't intetesting anyway.

And this is my main problem with this series. I love Jurassic Park and at least enjoyed the other films. All of those films had teenagers in them who were in trouble and in danger of getting eaten. But none of them were as unnerving and unsympathetic as the group of kids we are presented here.

Kenji, the rich kid, is unbelievably stupid and seems to have decided to think of the worst possible decision constantly and then do it.

Brooklynn the social media addict is kind of the main 'girl character'. I guess we're supposed to root for her but I just felt sorry for this attention-craving, shallow parody of a real girl.

And don't get me started on the kid whose name I couldn't even remember who is probably even scared of his own shadow in the mirror. Why did he join the camp in the first place? Was he threatened by his parents?

Probably the only character I found a little more realistic and engaging was the sporty girl simply because she didn't seem too over-the-top.

So, I watched the entire show to see if one or two of the kids get eaten by the T-Rex. Since this is a spoiler-free review, I won't tell you if my wish has been granted.

I know that this is a kid's show and I don't have a problem with that. There are great shows for kids out there! Shows with interesting, likeable characters who can function as role models for your own kids.

But this is not it. JW:CC has decent action and nice dinosaurs (probably the reason why anybody watches this anyway). If you care about more than that, don't watch it.

43 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Twin Peaks (2017)

9/10

Unlike anything else on TV... thankfully!!

21 April 2020

When I watched the third season of Twin Peaks (I know that's not an official third season. But for me it is.) I found myself thinking "I can't believe this is television." It's unlike anything else on TV, at least anything I've ever seen. After 25 years, David Lynch and Mark Frost have really continued Twin Peaks with complete creative control. And they use that to really give something unique and utterly difficult to us.

Yes, the pace is quite slow. But then, at times, it accelarates like crazy and then developes a real impact.

If you want traditional storytelling, stay away from Twin Peaks. But if you aren't afraid of TV that is innovative, complex and dream-like, you will love it. Lynch does tell a story. He just tells it differently than anybody else.

I don't think that I understood everything that happened in the season. I don't even think that's possible or in Lynch's sense. The funny thing, and that's a big compliment for Lynch: Twin Peaks doesn't break down under all the mystery. Some episodes contain seemingly random scenes that make sense two episodes later. Others are pretty straight-forward while others are so experimental that they could also be placed in an art gallery. Sometimes Twin Peaks is also really funny, sometimes heartbreakingly sad.

Finally, I have to say I'm impressed what David Lynch has pulled off here. If you take a look at the making-of material on the blu-ray, you notice how David Lynch gives everything he has to this production. Every detail is important to him, nothing is coincidence. He directed all 18 episodes himself which is something he didn't do for the original series. I can't imagine how much power he had to put into the making of this 18 hour long movie. And it's a David Lynch movie! This really is David Lynch's baby.

And what a terrible, beautiful baby this is!

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

7/10

Let's be fair...

28 March 2020

Warning: Spoilers

I'd like to begin with a little thought experiment. Imagine it's 1991, Terminator 2 has just come out. Also, let's imagine the internet and had existed at that time. What would many of the comments look like?

"OMG, the Terminator has gone soft! He is a father figure now! T2 has officially ruined the Franchise!"

"The T1000 doesn't look scary at all! What's with that liquid metal crap???"

"This kid actor that plays John Connor can't act!! This is supposed to be the savior of mankind??"

While browsing through the comments to Terminator: Dark Fate I thought: Why are people today so much more unforgiving than before? Is this the worst film ever? Would the same people trash T2 if it came out today?

Anyway, I watched it and I was surprised in a good way. Not to defend everything that happens here, the new Terminator has its weaknesses. You can of course critizise it for killing off John Connor and basically telling a new saviour story. You can also be angry about replacing Skynet with a new dangerous AI called Legion.

But you can also be thankful for the return of Linda Hamilton not just as a cameo but as a main character. Also, the film is a chase movie again. The main characters are on the run constantly, which is one of the key elements of T1 and 2. Also, most of the irritating humour from T3 especially is gone. Yes, Arnold has some One-liners again, but the overall feel of the film is much darker and even more violent again. Finally, the film offers some fresh ideas that haven't been seen in previous Terminator-films. Some of them I like more, some less.

So I actually agree with some critics who claimed this the third best entry in the series. I mean have you seen what happened since T2??

*T3 has a weak villain and relies too much on stupid jokes. *The one with Christian Bale had some potential but turned out quite boring and didn't really feel like a Terminator-film. *Genysis was all over the place and it had Jai Courtney (I don't know why this man is still acting...)

I'm happy with the decision of the filmmakers to ignore everything that happened after T2. Also, I have tremendous faith in James Cameron, who was involved as a writer and exec producer here, that this is close to his vision for the Terminator Franchise.

Again, I don't know why people are so hard on this film. Yes, it's not perfect. But in no way is it the worst film in the Franchise.

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Witcher (2019– )

8/10

It's useless to compare it to Game of thrones

30 December 2019

As a reader of the Geralt-books and player of the games, I have waited eagerly for this show. And it didn't disappoint.

I think it's kind of unfair to compare the Witcher to Game of Thrones as so many people here have done.

Yes, it's also fantasy but that's about it. In Game of Thrones the fantastic elements take a much smaller part. In the Witcher series we have mutants, monsters, mages, elves right from the start. Also, the Witcher is centered on one person. You guessed right, it's the witcher. Of course there are other main characters like Yennefer and Ciri, but in Game of thrones there are multiple storylines with dozens of equal characters. You can't expect that from the Witcher. The novels are also noticably shorter and less complex than GoT. So of course the series feels different. And that's a good thing.

Some things that characterize both the books and the series:

dark humour
long dialogue passages
shorter episodes that are like finished (that might change if the series makes it to book 3. From here on it's an ongoing story)
time lapses (even more apparant in the series
references to classic fantasy mythology like fairytales, folk tales etc.

All this is captured quite well in the series. It's a tough thing adapting books and having to please fans of the games most of whom haven't read them. I think the casting is mostly excellent (although I would've preferred a red-headed Triss) and the production value is good.

I hope they make it until season 3 in which, if they stick to the books, the real fun begins.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Inland Empire (2006)

8/10

More art than film

25 December 2019

It is so hard to rate this film... I can't say that I liked it but I can say that I was captivated and impressed by it. It's a film that doesn't feel like a typical film per se, more like an installation of modern art you can enjoy at a museum.

I'm not going to try to interpret what I saw. In a David Lynch film all interpretation attempts are either useless or failures. Instead I'm going to try to describe the ride you're in for, if you decide to watch Inland Empire. And a ride it truly is...

Laura Dern gives an amazing performance. I didn't know she could act like that but she nails both of her roles (watch it and you'll get what I mean) perfectly. She is the sole center of the film and carries it over the length of 3 hours.

Lynch used a digital camera for Inland Empire and it's very visible. At times the image is extremely grainy and the movement of the camera looks very hand-held. At times, it looks like found-footage or home-video. But on the other hand, Lynch uses the camera for more extreme close-ups of faces and objects than ever while keeping the background in focus. This creates a sense of unease because the camera is far closer than we are comfortable with in a normal dialogue scene. You have that constant feeling that something is very wrong here.

Lynch tells his "story" through lots and lots of single, fragmented scenes rather than following a single plot line. He doesn't follow a coherent narrative. In my opinion, Inland Empire is even more radical here than Lynch's previous works like Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive. It feels like at this point in his life he really doesn't give a ... about giving the viewer something to hold on to. It's more like he says: "You want to see a Lynch-film? Take that!"

So how to rate this? Well, it's well acted, uniquely filmed, very demanding, at times quite scary. It's very long but not boring. Sometimes I think Lynch overdid it here and tried to be confusing and write sense-less dialogue (or maybe I just didn't get it...) for the sake of it.

So, that's why I gave it an 8. Maybe after my third time, I'll give it a 10 or a 5. With this film anything is possible.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Irishman (2019)

9/10

De Niro! Pacino! Pesci!

28 November 2019

A couple of years ago I was thinking while watching Robert De Niro in some performance alongside Zac Efron: My god, this is one of the greatest actors ever. Why is he filming this garbage?? I was hoping so bad for another really great performance in a truly great movie.

Well, my hopes have been answered. Led by Martin Scorsese, De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci have pulled it off again. They created a powerful epic spanning almost 50 years. And yes, it's a mobster movie! I almost cried because I was so happy.

I'm not giving this a 10 because I think that Scorsese has made better or at least more focused movies in the past. But yes, it is a great movie and I'm so happy to see the old heroes De Niro, Pacino and Pesci one more time acting in a real quality picture. If this was the last role for any of them, it was a worthy ending.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dark Phoenix (2019)

7/10

There isn't just a 1 or a 10, you know?

20 October 2019

I get that Dark Phoenix isn't the best x-men movie around. I do. For me, it is Days of future past, followed by x2 and first class. But in no way does it deserve that level of bashing it receives.

First of all, Sophie Turner's performance isn't bad. She just has a different acting style than Famke Jansen who played Jean before. I think she transports the insecurity, vulnerability and underlying strength of Jean nicely.

I also liked that this is a movie that takes itself seriously and doesn't constantly wink at you, going: "Don't ask too many questions, we know it's ridiculous. See, we're even making fun of ourselves" like MCU or even recent DCEU-movies. Of course, when there is some clumsy dialog or something it becomes more obvious if a movie doesn't 'wink' at you and wants to be taken seriously.

Of course, Dark Phoenix is a rather dark movie with not many lighthearted moments. That was to be expected if you know the source material.

Speaking of which: I'm so fed up with people who think they know how a movie version of a certain comic book story should play out. There's more than one version of this story. So why not cut the movie some slack and accept one more version, even if it's not how you imagined it?

I have one serious problem with Dark Phoenix though and it's Jessica Chastain's villainess. She doesn't have enough to do in this movie and seems to serve only as a 'threat from outside'. In my opinion, her character was just unneccessary because the story is not centered around her but Jean.

So please rate the movie fairly and not just based on your expectations. This is not the worst movie of all time. It makes some bold decisions that apparently are not to everyone's liking. So what? There are more numbers than 1 and 10 here, right?

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)

8/10

Great fun!

14 October 2019

I know Dodgeball is stupid. But I really like it! I know the movie is knee deep in clichee. But I enjoy it anyway. Is it predictable? Oh yes. But it's great fun nonetheless. How come?

First of all: the way school sport dodgeball is presented like the struggle for life and death just makes me smile all the time. It's so over the top!

Speaking of over the top: Ben Stiller acts like a pumped up maniac and owns every scene he is in with his enormous stupidity, pointless word play and even with his ridiculous facial hair. You can see he was having a blast and so was I watching him.

Call me simple but I also had a blast watching the players getting pounded by balls, wrenches or whatever is thrown at them.

Finally, being German, I almost fell off my sofa laughing when David Hasselhoff appeared as the coach of the aryan German team. Genius!

So no, this isn't the best film ever made and it's also not the best comedy in the world. But it's great fun if you like sports movies and have a soft spot for stupid humour.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hullabaloo: Live at Le Zenith, Paris (2002 Video)

10/10

Muse on top of their game

7 September 2019

I consider myself a massive Muse fan. I first watched them live in Stuttgart in a small club in 2001 and became basically addicted to them and their music. So this is not a neutral review (which you can very rarely find on imdb anyway).

Looking back at this performance, it is especially noticeable how 'raw' it feels compared to their more recent shows which are also always great, but seem more choreographed. This is only three guys on stage, playing songs from their first two albums and developing an unusual energy. There are small mistakes in some of the songs which only add to the raw power and authenticity they had at that time. I was really worried about Matt Bellamy because he seemed so fragile and sang, played and screamed his soul out every evening. Fortunately, my fears were proved false.

It's also nice to see them play songs they very rarely play live today like 'Showbiz', 'Hyper Music' or 'Megalomania'. So if you want to find out where Muse came from before they were catapulted into mainstream, see this! It is musically vastly superior to their later 80s-pop-influenced work. I hope they will return to being just an epic kick-ass rockband in the future. With this band, you never know what happens next.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hans Zimmer Live in Prague (2017 TV Special)

9/10

That's what good sound systems are made for!

14 July 2019

I have a sort of ambigious opinion when it comes to Hans Zimmer. He seems a little arrogant in interviews and has created something of a recognizable 'Hans Zimmer sound', especially in the 90s with his scores of Crimson Tide, The Rock and the sorts. I didn't think he was that versatile and quite often I thought he composed some rather uninspired scores.

But then I watched this performance on bluray on a good sound system... and was blown away.

When you compare the ethereal soundtrack of Gladiator to the spiritful Lion King, to the tearjerking Chevaliers of Sangreal or to the almost brutal Dark Knight you can't help but marvel at the sheer emotional power these pieces develop.

The musicians are all top notch and seem to be having fun on stage. Zimmer also has lots of nice words to say about everybody and doesn't seem arrogant at all. He's just a musician in his element.

The performance is nicely captured and the sound quality is simply breathtaking.

See this if you're a lover of powerful, emotional music and like watching great musicians at work!

14 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Friends (1994–2004)

9/10

Simply the best

29 June 2019

Friends is the best sitcom I have ever seen. I watched all ten seasons multiple times and plan on doing so again in a couple of years.

Here's what's so great about it:

1. Great characters Who wouldn't like to have friends as good and diverse as this? Yes, they're all white. But remember that Friends began at a time when it wasn't considered a neccessity to at least have a black, an asian and a gay character in the same show. I can't imagine a person who can't relate to at least one of the characters.

2. The balance Friends is quite often simple fun, sometimes it's emotional, sometimes it's almost depressingly sad. But somehow the writers always managed to clear the air with a laugh at the right moment.

3. Friends takes its characters seriously. Sure, it makes fun of them as part of the comedy but every character also has its honest, heartfelt moments without seeming forced.

4. The guest stars Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Bruce Willis, Julia Roberts, JCVD, Elle MacPherson, Robin Williams, Billy Crystal, Danny de Vito... The list goes on.

5. The 'quotability' Me and my friends still use many phrases, jokes and references from Friends in our every day life. Here are just three examples. 'My girlfriend's a lesbian.' 'Joey doesn't share food!!' 'We were on a break!'

6. The writing Although the show went on for 10 seasons, it didn't feel too repetetive. In my opinion they found a good time for the end of the show. Some storylines feel similar but never bore me. I don't know how they did it, but they did.

I subtract 1 point for the laugh track (never understood that...) and some best-off-episodes consisting mostly of funny moments from previous episodes (no-one needs that!)

Other than that, perfect entertainment!

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Speed (1994)

9/10

Archetypical action-movie

14 June 2019

If there is some kind of formula for the perfect action movie, Speed is chemistry of the highest level.

It gives us a short but frantic opening scene, not unlike your typical James-Bond movie. We also get to know the hero and the villain.

Then we are quickly put into an impossible situation (a bus that will explode if it runs slower than 50). Now Speed milks this situation and puts new obstacles in our hero's (and the bus') way. I know that this is classic Die Hard-Stuff. But rarely does a Die Hard-clone work so perfectly well. Everything here from a camera-, editing- and pacing point of view works extremely well.

As usual, you have to accept that we are in movieland and not in real life. But hey, at least Speed is more realistic than all 'Fast and Furious'-Parts which have done everything possible and impossible with cars except flying in space.

The acting is appropriate for this kind of movies. Keanu Reeves is such a good guy. Dennis Hopper is such a bad guy.

One thing bothers me though: I really can't stand Sandra Bullock in this phase of her career. In Speed, she is playing the role of the natural every-day girl. Okay. But Bullock portrays her as an extremely annoying, squeaking woman who repeats almost everything she says multiple times. Drink a shot every time Bullock repeats the same thing in the same or slightly different fashion. You'll be drunk long before the credits.

If you want to see what an archetypical 90's action movie looks like, see Speed.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

It (1990)

6/10

Good, but could be so much better!

27 May 2019

I saw this two-parter way to early when I was 10 or 11 years old. At that time, I was almost traumatized by Tim Curry as Pennywise. So, returning to the movie many years later, I expected to be scared again. But I wasn't, maybe some of you can relate to that. Why is that? Let me clarify by imaging the 'perfect' version of 'It'.

Don't get me wrong, this adaptation does have its moments and manages to create an overall uncomfortable athmosphere with its mix of 'Stand by me'-like coming of age drama and horror.

First of all, lets transform this into an HBO-series with 10 episodes. You wouldn't have to squeeze all important plot points into three hours and could show a bit more scary stuff than on cable tv.
Secondly, lose the strict separation of the childhood years and the grown-up's return to Derry. The novel spends much more time with the kids and most of the stuff happens to them. Maybe the separation was made in order not to confuse the audience. But I believe viewers are more intelligent than studios think and can handle some time lapses. King chose that structure for a reason, so why not stick to it?
In modern television it is not unusual to have a whole episode with only character introduction, development and motivation. Not every episode must have a climax as we learned from watching Breaking Bad or maybe even Game of Thrones. This version kinda succeeds in bringing us close to the kids but the adults stay relatively flat. The reason for that is that here, every 20 minutes or so a little cliffhanger had to be created for commercial breaks on television to hook the audiences. In the perfect version we could enjoy a whole episode without anything scary only to be hit all the harder in the next one.
Finally the ending... (no spoilers) In the novel, the final confrontation is intercut between the kids and the adults. The two stories move forward similarly and help each other. How perfect would it be to have that in a series instead of basically repeating the same ending 1,5 hours later. Also, in our perfect version I would prefer a cgi-finale that could really bring across the mythical and strange quality of the novel. But I guess, considering the date of release and the budget of the mini-series, the film-makers did a decent job.

Now I really wish I could see this perfect version of 'It' and wouldn't have to live with this version. But I still prefer it to the 2017-version which also separates the children's and adult's stories but also exaggerates everything and relies to heavily on jump scares.

One can only hope...

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Aquaman (2018)

5/10

Why does it all look so fake?

25 May 2019

We live in an era in which foto real effects are not that hard to achieve. Many movies with smaller budgets look more real than this. Why?? Don't they care or worry about that stuff anymore?

This problem is not specific to Aquaman, but to all DCEU movies. To me, it just was more apparent here. If you want to show a lighthouse, go outside and film an actual lighthouse. They do exist, you know? If movies don't even try to make the effects seem real, where is the difference to a video game which you can't play?

I know that this review doesn't contain any info about story, acting and other components of Aquaman. I guess you've read it all before.

See this movie if you like Vfx that shout 'I'm here, don't I look cool' and if you watch everything superhero-related. You might have a good time.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Das Rheingold (1992 TV Movie)

9/10

Beautifully shot

21 May 2019

I'll keep this brief. Wagner's epic opera quadrilogy doesn't need any more praise.

This version is beautifully filmed. Multiple cameras were used to capture wide angles as well as closer views of the characters. We can see the whole stage and the facial expressions of the singers involved. You can't get this experience in the opera house.

The use of fog and light is quite efficient here and sets the mood well. This compensates for the otherwise rather simple stage decoration.

The orchestra delivers a nuanced, detailed sound instead of a typical wagnerian wall of sound that is too often associated with his music. I enjoyed this. It is a nice testament to Barenboim's conducting.

My only criticism concerns the quality of the DVD's picture and sound. It isn't bad per se. But you can clearly see and hear that Das Rheingold was filmed during the 1990s. Had it been filmed today in High Definition and in surround sound, the experience would have been even more immersive. But this is just a minor flaw. With a good sound system the opera is still an acoustic feast.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Die 1000 Glotzböbbel vom Dr. Mabuse (2018)

7/10

Funny swabian 'remix' of a classic

14 April 2019

This film is basically a remix of a 1960s classic from director Fritz Lang, one of many movies revolving around the mysterious criminal mastermind Dr. Mabuse. The original is a pretty straightforward thriller with some undertones of mystery.

But this remix is something different. It is the classic film with new synchronisation by swabian comedian Dodokay who became locally famous because of his youtube-versions of stuff like '24' or Star Wars in which he put new texts in the swabian dialect under the original pictures. This is his first full-length synchronisation of a complete movie.

Being swabian myself, I was laughing my butt off because of the inside jokes you only understand if you know the dialect and if you've got some knowledge about swabian clichee. I can't really say what the experience would be for an audience from other parts of Germany or even other countries.

You've got to hand it to Dodokay that je really put some effort into this movie. This isn't cheaply done. Great care is put into all aspects of the film:

Dodokay lends his voice to all the characters in the movie and makes them recognizable.
New music was composed for this.
It doesn't tell exactly the same story as the original. Many scenes are cut or put together differently so that it suits Dodokays new story.
Subtle vfx are used to give the movie a more local feel. The number plates of the cars for example have been digitally replaced so that they match the area in which the story takes place. This is only one of many examples.

So, all in all, this movie isn't for everyone. It helps if you're Swabian or have at least a certain interest in the dialect. If you also like classic movies, this one is perfect for you. You'll probably laugh a lot. If not, save your money or buy yourself a swabian dictionary.

8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Predator (1987)

8/10

Great 80s action film

29 March 2019

In 'Predator' Arnold Schwarzenegger and a bunch of tough guys fight in the jungle but end up fighting someone entirely different, someone not from this world. You don't need more information to know what you're up for.

I love this movie although it's hard to ignore some flaws which are typical for the action cinema of the 1980s. Let me give you some examples.

Arnold's oneliners and his impersonation of a one-man-army feels kind of dated today. The age of muscle-packed, almost immortal heroes is over, at least for now. This was typical for the 1980s. If you want to see the prototype of this kind of movie making, I recommend 'Commando' from 1985. The aforementioned bunch of tough guys is as clichee and one-dimensional as it gets.

Apart from these minor flaws, the movie rocks. Here are some reasons for that:

*It is violent and doesn't hold back anything. Although a big budget movie, it doesn't even think about going PG13. *The setting in the jungle is great and creates lots of opportunities for hiding, sneaking around and danger in general. *Predator still looks good. Watch it in HD and you'll forget that it's more than 30 years old. *The Predator is one of the best movie monsters ever designed although some people make fun of his dreadlocks. He is instantly recognizable and therefore iconic. Besides, like in Spielberg's 'Jaws', it takes a long time until we really see the monster. All we get until quite late in the movie are glimpses, which makes for additional suspense. *I like that Arnold doesn't stand a chance in a hand to hand-combat against the Predator. Unlike most of his movies, he isn't the physically strongest of the characters here. That's why we feel more worried about him than usual because at least here, something COULD happen to him.

In conclusion, 'Predator' is one of the best bad-ass action movies of the 1980s. I prefer it to all of the later sequels / reboots.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Incredibles 2 (2018)

8/10

What's with all the hate?

6 March 2019

Let me start with a few words about what films are. Films are manipulation of the audience. They manipulate our feelings through pictures, music, sound, acting, mise-en-scene, editing etc... Disney and Pixar represent the absolute mainstream of film-making. It almost is expected of them to send messages to their supposedly young audience (although I can't imagine all the hate comments were written by the target audience...). Most of the time Disney sends out messages to manipulate us. Sometimes it's "It's okay to be different", sometimes "friendship is important", "Stay true to yourself" or "fight for your dream". Almost everybody can relate to those.

In Incredibles 2 it's time for female empowerment. This is just as valid as the other messages I mentioned but as you can see when you read other comments about the film, it creates some controversy. I think it's unfair to shout 'Propaganda!!' here and not also talk about Moana, Frozen and other films that have strong female characters. I think all the criticism is not valid. Mr Incredible isn't weak here. He actually is the most relatable of all the Parr family. He's not un-manly because he takes care of the kids and fails at first. He's manly because ultimately he succeeds in the end. Elasti-Girl isn't better than him. She puts career and the 'greater good' before family. This is controversial at least. She also draws wrong conclusions, needs rescuing and isn't the most capable of the Supers. So what is all the fuzz about?

This is a fun film that has a message not everybody might enjoy but that is equally important in our day and age. Yes, it might be too much for 5 year old kids. Then for god's sake, don't take your 5 year old to a film that's about a superhero family and takes about 2 hours! See 'Cars' again on Disney channel! I truly enjoyed the spy movie spoof moments, the whole family dynamic, the humour (for lots of the jokes it also helps if you're older than 5...), the animation and yes, also the message, although I admit it is quite in-your-face.

If like me you don't trust 1-star and 10-star ratings, watch the 'Incredibles 2'. I can't imagine any sane person that enjoyed the first part or the "How to train your dragon" films to leave the cinema truly disappointed.

Finally, this is a way better sequel than 'Finding Dori' was. This one takes more risks and tells a different story than the first part.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Legend (1985)

8/10

So beautiful!

1 March 2019

This is not a children's film. If you see it as a children's film 'Legend' fails. It's too dark, strangely paced and not as talky as most kiddie flicks today.

See it as a beautifully shot fantasy, full of stunning imagery, great costumes, archetypical metaphorical characters. Then it delivers and stands the test of time. I just saw it on bluray and it looks amazing. Ridley Scott's style is in full bloom. Here, really every frame is a painting.

The story is really straightforward and simple. I want go into detail. It's basically your typical 'hero rescues princess from the bad guy's lair' story. What some people don't seem to understand is that this simplicity is intentional. The viewer is part of a fight, metaphorical and literal. It is the fight for innocence (impersonated by the beautiful Mia Sara) and how easy it is to corrupt innocence. This is what Scott is telling us in my opinion.

It's a valuable point if you take a look at the world we live in nowadays. I work with children every day and I can't help but notice that even 10-12 year old kids have lost part of their sense of wonder, childish joy, curiosity... in a word, their innocence. This film shows that it's the easy thing to lose and the hard thing to maintain it. Scott's dreamlike visuals appeal to our sense of wonder and ask us to just sit back, enjoy it and not to worry too much about storytelling, twists and turns or even realistic characters.

But even if you leave all that aside, you can enjoy 'Legend' as one of the most beautifully shot films you will ever see.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

bjoernidler

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed