[e-mail] Reviews

(T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1 (2004)

not really funny

[20 August 2004]

German TV gets sillier every day. You must have seen it to believe. The same goes for Periode 1. It is actually a comedy show that runs once e week. Once upon a time these comedians decided to make a movie. It was called `Der Schuh des Manitu' and it became the greatest success in cinema history in Germany. I couldn't believe that. I found it not the least bit funny nor do I find the tv series funny. But both have a huge fan base. Bully, the star of the this whole travesty isn't funny either. The only thing he does, is pretending to be gay. You see this every week in his show you saw this in `Der Schuh des Manitu' and you see it now in `Periode 1'.

I don't know what is going on in peoples minds. The can laugh a thousand times about the same old joke as long as the media tells them that the jokes are good. It reminds me somewhat of Farenheit 451….

Being gay is even trendy now. Thanks to the German TV. They realised to construct e extremely positive stereotype about gays. You see gay dozens of times every day in lots of shows, films and commercials etc. And they do always follow the same stereotype. For example a gay man is always sympathetic, he knows much about fashion, he is the man who understands women, he behaves a little bit over the top in every aspect. But he is always very, very sympathetic. I do not have something against gays but I have something against this stereotype. Here in Germany there are two kinds of gay reactions to the film. The superficial ones that loves the movie because they are shown as most positive, sympathetic and nice guys and who are even influenced in their behaviour by the stereotype shown in the media. And the others, more sophisticated ones, how know that they are all thrown into one an the same pot. They know that gays are individual as every other person on this planet and not only a one dimensional stereotype or a trendy appearance that will be replaced in the future from some other appearances.

After `Der Schuh des Manitu' German people were allowed to vote for a sequel. For example one could vote for another western or a star trek like sequel etc. As you see the star trek parody has won. And so it came to the slogan that this is the first democratically voted movie in history. But most of the movie plays in medieval times. Bully (the main actor and director) said in an interview that he always wanted to make a medieval movie. That said you can mention for yourselves how democratic this movie is. But that doesn't matter because `Periode 1' is on its way to be even more successful than its predecessor.

There are certainly other dim-witted personalities in this movie that are very popular and that every child knows in Germany. For example the not-so-funny Stefan Raab. He made one of the most stupid songs for this movie that will be a number one smash-hit before long.

All these factors: the beloved stereotype, the democracy, the stars and the music in combination with the commercials that you are confronted with all day through and last but not least the pride of the Germans to have created an Hollywood-like movie with special effects and gay slapstick jokes that do not have hide behind American comedies make this movie look like the greatest achievement in cinema history but if you lift the veil a little bit you see that it is only an empty husk of a movie, a wanna-be Hollywood flick and unfunny as hell. The same jokes repeat throughout the whole movie. It is so boring and even worse it is a `positive-gay-propaganda'. Sounds kinda funny but it isn't. Tanks for reading. (2/10)

Vertical Limit (2000)

Vertical armpit!

[1/10 · 16 July 2004]

Take a bunch of handsome guys, make them look as good as possible in every cut instead of letting them really act. Throw in some nice scenery and `mind blowing' action sequences. Further take some fake looking archive footage of avalanches and a huge load of pathetic corny dialogue. If that is not enough, two old, worn out hippies for comic relief - which are as funny as an enema on a public marketplace in the coldest winter when your balls have shrunk to the seize of peanuts and every lady around can see them – will do! In Switzerland where I come from we say: `that reeks like grandma's armpit' when something is really, really bad. Now I guess that sentence sums up the movie quite good. I have already seen better soap operas. (1/10)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Maybe not the best film in the world, but the best one for ME!!

[10/10 · 26 May 2004]

I will say it straight away: The Fellowship of the Ring the best part of the trilogy. I must have seen it at least ten times by now. There is something very special about this movie especially in the extended edition. Normally I'm not a big fan of bonus features and scenes on DVD's I actually hate them. I don't know why, but they have always the appearance to cheat on you. I can almost see the greedy Hollywood managers chuckling to themselves when they are throwing little pieces of **** (also called 'bonus material' in their language) on you that should have been remained on the cutting room floor and for that to earn the great money, to express it in a picturesque way. But as said above, in this film the new scenes - mostly at the beginning of the movie - add something that I have missed in the theatrical version. It is the feeling of the idyllic and peaceful Shire which Tolkien described so poetically in his book.

It is plain and simply magic what appears on the screen during the first thirty minutes. The azure blue sky, the bright green grass, the heart warming sunbeams that drown the whole landscape in such a peaceful light and in the middle of all that the small, rustic and peace loving society of the Hobbits with all their lovely traditions. It seems to exist really and there are few things in the world that I would prefer more than to leave all things behind and to go to that place and have a peaceful and close-to-nature life. Escapism in its purest form if I may say that! And what makes it even more powerful as a beginning of such a long movie (about 11 hours) is the Shire theme made by Howard Shore. It fits perfectly to the lovely nature and the freedom shown on the screen.It is a very beautiful contrast to what follows in the second part and at the end of the third one, namely the battle on the Plennor Fields.

This movie lied the foundation for the success for it's followers. I think that it legitimated a little bit the overuse of action in pt two and three. When you watch the trilogy as a whole you have the feeling that the story really played in Middle Earth. Had the first part been an action overloaded flick instead of a solid basis that took its time to introduce Middle Earth, the whole trilogy would not have the same significance that it has now – it would not be a cinematic masterpiece that will stand the test of time!

I have read someone writing that he eagerly awaits the coming years and with that the progress in Special Effects so that those used in this movies would look old fashioned so that everyone could see that there is nothing behind this movie than de CGI, that it is just a empty husk of a movie. I agree in parts. He may be right with certain sequences of TTT and ROTK. But not with this film for the reasons I mentioned in my review. It has heart and it is not just a piece of junk that comes out of the fountain-pen of an overpaid new-age Hollywood script writer. It is based on one of the best fantasy books, if not the best and Peter Jackson and the hundreds of people that worked on this film really have done a great job transporting the magic of the book to screen. Certainly some things could have been made better and the absence of Tom Bombadil was e big error. I am sure he would have added even more of the Middle-Earth-Magic I've already mentioned. It is very sad.

But even without him this film is not just entertainment and eye-candy. I will not say that it has much deepness and for many people who are shouting against this movie on this site deepness seems to be the only purpose a good movie can have. But they are all wrong. This movie simply evokes feelings and emotions that you don't experience every day and that is as much as you can expect from a fantasy epos. If that isn't enough for you, then simply avoid watching it or go home after watching it and read some poetry, but don't look for it in LOTR and rave if you don't find it!

Recently I've seen Van Helsing. It was just a totally different feeling than watching this. And it is not only because FOTR is done better in many ways, that it has for example a better sore or a better plot (or even has a plot ;-) ) Van Helsing and other movies of that sort seem only to be an excuse to get your money. The are produced in a short time and are forgotten in a short time after having seen it. And I don't think that it will make the producer sad, he has earned his money. Such productions charge the cinemas more and more nowadays. But you should not make the error to put FOTR in this category. You simply feel that this film has not been made for the above reasons by watching it. It has been made only that there is a movie that can make people's hearts a little more happy in a cold and alienated world! So, that's what I wanted to get rid off, after having seen the movie a good couple of times and after having read some strangely negative comments. So please see this movie, enjoy it and do not look for philosophical topics or whatever!

(10/10)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Maybe not the best film in the world, but the best one for ME!!

[10/10 · 22 May 2004]

magic what appears on the screen during the first thirty minutes. The azure blue sky, the bright green grass, the heart warming sunbeams that drown the whole landscape in such a peaceful light and in the middle of all that the small, rustic and peace loving society of the Hobbits with all their lovely traditions. It seems to exist really and there are few things in the world that I would prefer more than to leave all things behind and to go to that place and have a peaceful and close-to-nature life. Escapism in its purest form if I may say that! And what makes it even more powerful as a beginning of such a long movie (about 11 hours) is the Shire theme made by Howard Shore. It fits perfectly to the lovely nature and the freedom shown on the screen.It is a very beautiful contrast to what follows in the second part and at the end of the third one, namely the battle on the Plennor Fields.

This movie lied the foundation for the success for it's followers. I think that it legitimated a little bit the overuse of action in pt two and three. When you watch the trilogy as a whole you have the feeling that the story really played in Middle Earth. Had the first part been an action overloaded flick instead of a solid basis that took its time to introduce Middle Earth, the whole trilogy would not have the same significance that it has now – it would not be a cinematic masterpiece that will stand the test of time!

I have read someone writing that he eagerly awaits the coming years and with that the progress in Special Effects so that those used in this movies would look old fashioned so that everyone could see that there is nothing behind this movie than de CGI, that it is just a empty husk of a movie. I agree in parts. He may be right with certain sequences of TTT and ROTK. But not with this film for the reasons I mentioned in my review. It has heart and it is not just a piece of junk that comes out of the fountain-pen of an overpaid new-age Hollywood script writer. It is based on one of the best fantasy books, if not the best and Peter Jackson and the hundreds of people that worked on this film really have done a great job transporting the magic of the book to screen. Certainly some things could have been made better and the absence of Tom Bombadil was e big error. I am sure he would have added even more of the Middle-Earth-Magic I've already mentioned. It is very sad.

But even without him this film is not just entertainment and eye-candy. I will not say that it has much deepness and for many people who are shouting against this movie on this site deepness seems to be the only purpose a good movie can have. But they are all wrong. This movie simply evokes feelings and emotions that you don't experience every day and that is as much as you can expect from a fantasy epos. If that isn't enough for you, then simply avoid watching it or go home after watching it and read some poetry, but don't look for it in LOTR and rave if you don't find it!

Recently I've seen Van Helsing. It was just a totally different feeling than watching this. And it is not only because FOTR is done better in many ways, that it has for example a better sore or a better plot (or even has a plot ;-) ) Van Helsing and other movies of that sort seem only to be an excuse to get your money. The are produced in a short time and are forgotten in a short time after having seen it. And I don't think that it will make the producer sad, he has earned his money. Such productions charge the cinemas more and more nowadays. But you should not make the error to put FOTR in this category. You simply feel that this film has not been made for the above reasons by watching it. It has been made only that there is a movie that can make people's hearts a little more happy in a cold and alienated world! So, that's what I wanted to get rid off, after having seen the movie a good couple of times and after having read some strangely negative comments. So please see this movie, enjoy it and do not look for philosophical topics or whatever!

(10/10)

Van Helsing (2004)

This movie is really a piece of art

[2/10 · 9 May 2004]

This movie is really a piece of art! On Saturday I have seen David Lynch's Blue Velvet for the first time. It was quite hard to digest and I had wonderful nightmares during the night because of the morbid atmosphere he establishes in his movies. I thought that these nightmares were a good inspiration to got to see Van Helsing the next day. And so I took a friend and we went to witness this `unique' experience.

Some reviewers wrote quiet funny things. One said that the acting couldn't have been worse if there were sock puppets instead of real actors. One said, that the movie is as if someone wrote a LETTER ONLY WITH BIG LETTERS and another wrote that this movie is the king of all the cliché overloaded Hollywood blockbusters of recent years. And guess what? – They are all damn right!

From start to finish it is one big abuse of clichés. It is as if someone took every single cliché that was used in every single Jerry Bruckheimer production and threw in into one big hat, then stirred a little bit and made a film in the exact order of the items he draw. In fact the amount of clichés used in this movie is nothing less but ART. I have never seen something equal in my whole life and I've seen plenty of films.

By the end of the film when my brain was transformed into a box of limp biscuits and my buttocks were swollen to the size of blimp (yes, the movie lasted for nearly two and a half hours and I could not sit still for only one minute because I squirmed like an brain amputated eel by trying to not to perceive any bit of the corny dialogue) I couldn't stop laughing. I had to laugh about the acting, I had to laugh about the cheesy looking GCI and I had to laugh because it was a greater nightmare to watch this film and for that to have wasted more than two hours of my life, than the nightmare I had the night before after watching Blue Velvet. So I begun to think about what could have made to movie even worse and at least I did find out what.

Sommers could have given an employment to Orlando Bloom with his excessive abuse of just one single facial expression. An expression as if something heavy had fallen on his big toe and he's now waiting until the pain reaches his brain to process. His expression would have fit beautifully to the one single, tremendously long, monotonous fighting scene from the start to the finish of this travesty.

I cannot give this flick any ratings because otherwise I would have to buy the Imdb homepage and allow to rate negatively. Then I gave a -6 but since this is too extravagant I give you the advice to take a bath in a pool full of blood-hungry piranhas instead of wasting time, money and wits with this……ya know….thing!

Achtung, fertig, Charlie! (2003)

this flick is a travesty!

[1/10 · 19 March 2004]

This film is so bad, you can't imagine. The acting is terrible, even worse than in third class soap operas. An it is a shame that this movie was the most successful in the past 20 years in Switzerland. The interactions between the soldiers didn't make any sense at all. The story could have been taken out from a bravo photo-story, the dialogues were as wooden as Treebeard and the plot holes were bigger than the black hole in the middle of our galaxy. But nowadays it doesn't need much to satisfy the audience. The actors were handsome for example the former Miss Switzerland and the main character was even hung (woah!!) and there certainly was much abuse of drugs. That's real cool man! Particularly for 12 and 13 year old teens. But the media created an atmosphere in witch you was not allowed to reject the film because they manipulated the peer group dynamics by telling implicitly that you are a nerd if you don't go along with the other `sheep' and say.yes that is exactly what it was like when I was in the army/ that's exactly what I'm going to do when I must go to the army.. to every cheesy action that had to do with drugs and coolness. And don't think I like the army. I was there and I hated it but this film is worse than cleaning up the sticky toilet with a teeth brush (which I was forced to do because I offended an lieutenant) It is not necessary for every film to be sophisticated. Sometimes you only want to be entertained for a few hours and forget about problems and I think its not a bad thing. But this kind of films influence teenagers to much by showing them a cool lifestyle which in fact is only stupid and turns them into brainless ignorant and egocentric idiots. But since I now that my opinion isn't very popular I will be quiet now and recommend you to avoid this terrible flick at any costs and for that to save your wits!

2/10

(sorry for my bad English)

The Last Samurai (2003)

for americans!

[2/10 · 11 January 2004]

First I was a little bit reluctant to watch this film but since my friend had to go to the army the next day I agreed finally to go with him. The film was not as bad as I expected when I entered the cinema.

The story was quite good told. But there were certain things that really annoyed me. The whole movie was too much Americanized. Sometimes I asked myself how many times we can bear to see these good looking swaggering heroes from the west who are so much skilled again. I mean, is it normal that one can learn such a difficult language like Japanese within e few weeks or that he can fight like a samurai without much training? At the beginning tom cruise killed like six or seven samurai even though he was seriously wounded. E few minutes later he had problems fighting against a young child with a wooden sword and another half an hour later he was one of the best fighters in among the whole population of the samurai. What is the explanation of this phenomenon? That he is handsome? Or that he is an American? How many times is Hollywood trying to use the halo-effect(which means that we generalise from a specific features such as physical attractiveness to other features such as skills, unconsciously) again before people get tired of it?

******spoilers*******

But as I have said above the story was no bad in every aspect. I liked the way they showed how old values und standards where wiped out by the invasion of the western culture and the fear of the Japanese people to loose the big part of the cake and for that reason to forget who they were und to sell their own customs and their own past. But what was the worst part of the whole movie was the ending. If it had ended on the battle filed it would have been much better. Why did the last samurai had to be an American? I'm not saying that because I don't like Americans, they are not better nor are they worse than others but I think I would be a little bit ashamed if I was one of them. Would not be glad or even proud to see always and all the time one of my own people being the hero and the best and the greatest and superior to all others and the nicest guy on earth even though it must be very easy and entertaining to identify oneself with him. Maybe it would have been better if the Japanese had made this film by their own because I think that it is an important one. But then it would not be such a great success because we wouldn't understand the motives because they would not be adapted to our schemes of culture behaviour and honour. Well that's life…. The last shot when cruise met his girl again was dumb too because it made one feel a little bit that the whole thing was a film about the life of a certain man and not about the lost of old values for economical reasons and the dark sides of `globalisation' which is what the movie really is about.

But if you do not care about such things I can recommend you this flick without any remorse. Personally I give it (5/10). It is a solid piece of cinematic entertainment. Solid because it is a film like hundreds of others……..

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

the content will stand the test of time, the CGI not!

[10/10 · 21 December 2003]

************SPOILER FREE REVIEW****************



After having seen ROTK two times I felt the wish to say something about this film and the whole trilogy which I wanted to get rid off for a long time.

One of my major complaints in the first two installments were about the blurred GCI where you could clearly see that it is not Middle Earth you are watching to, but it is the middle of a computer. And I clearly have to say that things don't have changed in the Return of the king. But what has changed is my point of view. I'm now no longer looking for photo realistic shots because it seems to have no sense. The time for that hasn't come yet. Maybe some day they will revise this stain like they tried to do for the to the Star Wars trilogy some years ago and thereby a little more successful. I'm looking forward to but I can wait. What is important now for me is what the story wants to tell us. I think the heart of the movie goes out from the Shire. I felt it when I saw it again at the end of the movie. It was for me like coming home after a long an hard journey. It felt as if it was MY home, so cosy and familiar. And that after the groundbreaking and oversized battle on the Pelennor Fields where there was no room left for personal feelings. That establishes a great contrast which is for me not only the heart of the movie but the pulse which keeps it all alive. Sometimes you must put aside your own feelings and interests and even your own freedom and hopes and in this case, like in our history of wars to risk your own life, only that some day it can be as it was and that maybe an other individual can survive. You see that clearly when our four heros sit in the green dragon and drink their well deserved beer. They have fought with the hope that some day they could live their lifes as they always did and they didn't deny their responsibilities. They knew that if they had not done anything, the fires of Isengard would have spread to the Shire and the whole Middle Earth and that everything that was once green and good would have died. And they did it even though they were small and weak. They didn't have more brawn nor did they have more brain than the elves, dwarves or men. But they have other qualities more subtle ones. They are not as easily to corrupt by power as men are and they know what true friendship means. Only with those virtues it was possible to defeat Sauron. I like that very much and I think that this is very well shown in the Return of the King. What I actually wanted to say is that if you don't mind the (sometimes) bad CGI (there are very well made computer effects as well, for example the Shelob or the duplicated riders of Rohan) this film is a sure bet! It was not perfect, there were to much omissions and some characters like Denethor were too much simplified into one dimensional emotion bearers but there must be reasons to legitimate the existence of the Extended Editions. As said above there were also very good special effects and the acting was the best of all three instalments. Especially Sean Astin and John Noble (it is not his guilt that his role was reduced to a simple black/white contrast) played very well. I definitely will go to see ROTK another couple of times because there was too much in this film to appreciate in one single turn. So don't get me wrong, I highly recommend this film to anyone that has seen and loved the previous films. Without having seen them it must be extremely hard to follow the plot but you can go to see it nevertheless only to be blown away from the sheer magnitude of this achievement. It will be worth the price 2 x!!! I'm very glad this trilogy exists. In a very cynic time we must have something honest to cling to. Yes, you have read right, the content of the books as the content of the films I think is very honest. (The merchandising strategies is an other question). I will leave you now alone and hope that you go to see this film as soon as possible and enjoy it!

I rate it 10/10 because I'm a nerd!

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

almost perfect

[10/10 · 20 December 2003]

Spoiler free review

I have read many reviews, at least 80 in the last two days and my expectations which were already high, even rose after doing that. Now that I have seen the film I have to admit that it was one of the best I have seen over the past few years. I think this film was equal to the fellowship of the ring and superior to the two towers. It was less ill-paced than TTT and it had the same warmth as FOTR. The only thing that annoyed me a little bit were the omissions made but I look forward to the EE and if the missing scenes appear there it will probably be better than the first instalment.

I agree with most of the reviewers on this site, but there are some nitpickers and naysayers I want to ask a question. If you write that you found the first two instalments were crap why do you go to the movie theatre and watch the third too which you clearly knew would go in the same direction as the others did? And why do you watch it only one or two days after the release, witch means that you must have reserved the tickets at least a month before? I think I can give you the answer by myself. You are fans of the films but you just can't confess it! Maybe you have to increase you self-esteem by smashing down the movies which are acclaimed by the biggest part of the audience or by showing you nonconformity (which seems to be very cool and a duty nowadays). Or may be the lord of the rings just isn't enough `sophisticated' for cognitive capacity and you don't want to show in front of your friends that you liked it. It would not fit to your image. At any rate if you only go to the cinema to see and maybe write down in which scenes you could spot the blue boxes and some lights of the studio lamps in the eyes of the actors or something like that and for that reason try to make this movie look ridiculous then you can do that but don't come here to complain if you have nothing to say about the real quality of the film or how it affected you. I think Peter Jackson and the whole staff did their best to bring Middle Earth to life on the big screen and if the CGI doesn't look appropriate in every scene it's only because of the technical limits and we cannot reproach him for that. This books are fantasy. They do not have the ambition to be very sophisticated. I think one can say that they are the greatest achievement in fantasy literature but Tolkien didn't have the intention to place them among Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Nietzsche or even Aristotle in the `deepest books in history hall of fame'. He wrote the books with the single purpose of escapism and because he wanted to tell a complex and beautiful story which he found, didn't exist at that time. The same is with the films. If they are to childish for some viewers then they should watch Citizen Kane (which is my favourite film of all time) or Satyricon, and leave Jackson's trilogy aside. He made it for the fans (and maybe for his wallet to ;-)) and we should be thankful that it was realised by someone who was capable to catch the spirit of Tolkien quite good. So what I actually wanted to say is go to see the movie, enjoy it and decide for yourself if you like it or not. If yes, you can be very lucky about this Christmas gift if not, don't mind and have a nice Christmas time as well but do not misuse this forum for egoistic reasons!

My rating (9/10)