heidinanookie

Ok, high time for an update. I feel like the last one was a year ago or something. Before I launch into my list of movies and series, the big news first: I have quit my job! However, that does not mean that I have given up on my life here in London. I simply want to give myself more of an opportunity to enjoy it and with work taking up most of my time, that’s not happening. Before you ask, no, I do not have any plans – but I have lots of ideas! We’ll see where I’m sweped off to next, career- or otherwise. I still love this city and England feels like my home, despite all its flaws. The only reason I would want to leave is that I want to be closer to my family and friends again – and they are all in Vienna. The big problem: I don’t really want to return to Austria at this point, and I don’t want to live in Vienna. London has ruined me for returning to a provincial town like that. But we’ll see how the summer goes. I have a few months left at least to figure out my next step.

Series I’ve watched:

The OA Season 2 – disappointing. The actors are still fantastic, but I hate storylines with parallel universes in them.

The good Doctor Season 1 – this was on my NowTV subsciption which I got in order to watch GoT. I’ve always wanted to try this series and it’s great! A bit like House MD, but more human, with much better characters. Unfortunately, NowTV only has season 1.

Game of Thrones Final Season – I managed to catch most of this for free, but then I ran out of trial subscriptions. Did you know Hulu just takes your money but doesn’t even work in the UK? What a joke! They still keep sending me e-mails. And the people at NowTV are really damn clever, making sure you can’t just get endless free trials by creating new accounts. In the end, I had to concede. Anyway, the final season was messy. There were a few good moments, and a few WTF moments. Overall, not enough people died and the bottom line just seemed completely nonsensical. But what can you do? It could have been much worse, I guess.

Sense8 – my new favourite series! I found this on Netflix by accident and it’s just AWESOME! Can’t recommend enough. The story, devised by the famous Warchowsky siblings, is intriguing and original. The cast is just absolutely mind-blowingly  terrific. They found such brave actors with such genuine, electrifying chemistry that it boggles the mind. The emotional/sensual aspects are beautiful and touching. The threats feel real and immediate and the enemy is seriously terrifying and disturbing. The visuals are gorgeous, lush and detailed. The only thing I take issue with is the unnecessary violence – and the way every one of these three-dimensional character personalities seems to be fine with murder (eventually). The series also has a beautiful soundtrack. To my utter devastation it was cancelled after only two seasons! Fortunately, a miracle happened, though, and something came to pass that I’ve never heard of before: bowing to fan pressure, a feature-film sized 2.5 hour finale was produced to cap off the series. It aired a year ago, but it took me months to work up the courage to watch it because I simply did not want the series to end. Last week, it was time, though. I am really going to miss this series!

Supernatural – This turned up on my Amazon Prime and I thought maybe I should try and catch up for old time’s sake. I honestly did not remember when I had left the series, so I started with Season 10, not recognising anything at all. However, after about 5 or 6 episodes, there came an episode which I was aboslutely sure I had seen. That made me realise I had already dug may way through this season. I speed-watched the rest (summaries only) and started on Season 11. Here, it took me considerably longer to realise that I must have already watched this. In fact, some elements looked vaguely familiar, but I did not remember the season finale at all – and that was a real smasher!  Overall, with a bit of time and distance, Supernatural turned out to be fun again all of a sudden. I had forgotten most of the early seasons’ tight, serious story arcs and gained a bit of perspective over the years. This lead to me actually finding the newer seaons quite fun. The writers and actors were cleraly not taking things seriously any more, leading to some hilarious moments and plot points, but once you let go of what Supernaturl used to be and just get on board with the ridiculousness, it suddenly is so much more entertaining to watch. I genuinely had a great time with Season 11, and then Season 12 came along – and they managed somthing I never thought would happen: they found a threat that was interesting. Instead of monsters and apocalypses, they turned to other humans as the enemy and that actually produced an intriguing dynamic with some inevitable conclusions: people can be monsters too. Also, human enemies feel like much more of an immediate threat than mythical creatures. This gave the series an entirely new sense of suspense. It’s just a shame that they wasted a bunch of ideas on hurried MOTW episodes. Problems that would have spanned entire seasons are compressed into one episode. That’s a bit wasteful. Aslo, I’m not quite sure what they did to Cas. When did he become so human – more human than when he WAS human – and such a softy? It’s cute but it’s weird. Anyway, had to buy season 13 DVDs today because it’s not on Prime. I’m actually excited about this series again. Can’t believe they got me back ,but once I accepted that SPN would never go back to the way it was, that it’s a different series now, it started being fun again.

Next up: movies!

‚Black Panther‘ – Yet another flick from the Marvel-verse. I’m so fed up with that, but what can you do if you want to keep up with pop culture? This film about the ruler of Wakanda and his enemies was an average piece of sifi. The characters were silly and like superficial caricatures. If I were a black person (I don’t even know what the politically correct term is anymore), I would probably be annoyed by all the clichés about tribes and accents and attitudes etc. and be quite insulted. T’Chala failed to inspire any loyalty in me with his superficial personality. Andy Serkis was comically deranged as a villain (he clearly enjoyed himself, though, playing the role with abandon) and the rival nephew had some really strange ideas about world dominion and retribution. Funny thing: after all the complaining that is heard about lack of ethnical diversity in movies – as you know, you have to have at least one black person in the cast, no matter if they stick out like a sore thumb – I was asking myself: Where is the obligatory white person? And then came Martin Freeman. Incidentally, I loved him in this role. He is adorable and cuddly, heroic and shows the kind of integrity that most other characters are lacking (I suspect he may be the next agent Coulson). It was a joy to watch him and I’m glad he didn’t just fill the “obligatory white person” slot in some boring way.

The plot was dumb. I’m not sure how contemporary it is to have a villain motivated by paying back the “white” population of Earth for slavery by basically enslaving them in return. Seemed to be a very lazy agenda. All the racial debate and forced social critique fell completely flat. This movie genre is just not made for that sort of discussion. What added to the ridiculous impression was the incongruous use of language: why would Wakandans, who speak their own language, elect to speak English amongst themselves in studied, comically stereotypical “black” accents? You could even hear the actors struggle with having to put on the fake enunciation. The film also failed to strike the balance between light-hearted action/comedy - providing boring battles and awkward innuendo - and the more serious themes it is clearly aiming at, such as racial inequality. Unbearable silliness and shallow humour reigned with a surprising lack of tact: casually running over a person is not funny. Jeez.

On the technical side, this was a mess. The first thing I noticed was the bad lighting and horrible greenscreen work. The digital artists and lighting crew really fucked up with this one. The animations were dated and lifeless, and the designs will not win any visual awards (unless they did? Not sure what happened at the Oscars). The score and soundtrack had potential but were not properly utilised.

Ok, I’m tiring now. I would give this a 3/5 at maximum, by virtue of not having bored me, despite everything.

Avengers: Infinity War – Despite my mounting disgust with Marvel movies, I was looking forward to seeing this one as I was promised a more serious experience. I’m glad I took the plunge. I should probably issue a big fat SPOILER WARNING at the top of this as I will pile up some assorted musings that may be unfit for those who are still planning to see this film.
First off, the acting. By now, everybody clearly feels totally at home in their roles. I particularly enjoyed how Benedict Cumberbatch sort of grew into Dr. Strange’s coat. He seemed a lot more comfortable now, his character finally centered and settled. RDJ was a joy as Tony Stark, as always, and it would have been a tragedy for the franchise to lose him after Iron Man 3. I’m glad they found sufficient amounts of money somewhere in a drawer to keep him on board. The whole thing would not be half as good without him because, for me, Tony is the glue that keeps it all together, the conscience and the brains, the wit and the heart. I did not like the re-design of Black Widow. Apparently, there is only one character with red hair allowed at any given time. However, I enjoyed Paul Bettany way more as Vision than I did previously. Chris Hemsworth is just perfect as Thor, who has gone through quite a character-building journey in the previous movies and appears a lot more worthy of respect now. A quick note on Tom Hiddleston because I just have to: I am SO GLAD that he only appeared in the first few minutes because I was just soooo distracted remembering the night before watching this film, when I stood next to him and chatted with him about the play he’s currently doing here in London. I got a lovely photo out of it, too, and am still riding the high. So yeah, I could only think of him with red curls, a beard and a stylish, form-fitting black coat... Loki looks very different. XD (Gah! Gotta go look at that pic again now ) (ARGH! That reminds me that he would be the perfect height for me, as I am quite tall. We look good together in that pic. *sigh*)
On to the plot! I confess that I did not take Thanos seriously in the beginning. He seems not like your run-off-the-mill villain. Rather, he seems like a misguided extremist, but they quickly demonstrated that he means business when he started killing off people (of which this franchise has plenty to spare; By the time Gomorra died, I thought it was actually a good thing to start thinning out the ranks a bit and get rid of the overcrowding of characters). I enjoyed how Tony was, yet again, the one to rally the defence, and how they managed to weave that together with past trauma and grievances to make it interesting. It was fun to see the Guardians come into it and Captain America reuniting his team with the rest in their efforts to save the universe. On another note, one could complain that all the romantic entanglements that seem to be sprouting all over the place are a bit jarring, but I didn’t feel that way, surprisingly. I was just completely lost regarding how or when Pepper and Tony got together again. I really did my best to watch the massive rat’s tail of movies that came before this, and I still feel utterly lost at times.
I love how Tony found his bearings again after all the trauma he suffered and is the smart-mouthed brains of this whole thing. I love seeing him go toe to toe with everyone, but he knows what he’s talking about, dam nit! He’s in control and confident, cool and collected, but with a big, soft heart and an endearing vulnerability that I just can’t help but adore. Always my favourite character, and to see him suffer is heart-breaking.
They certainly stole from Lord Beris (Dragon Ball Super) with the gliding evil overlord move. However, I’m impressed to see that, for once, even the henchmen are scary and powerful and not just cannon fodder. Adds more weight to the threat.
As for the humour: I get that it’s tricky to hit the right tone in this particular movie and this franchise, but Thor smiling like that when he takes Starlord’s pod, just hours after his brother died and he was broken by grief, is a bit inconsistent. Going forward, however, they do do a great job at striking a surprisingly successful balance between comedy and high stakes tragedy. They bring a thigh-slapper every five minutes, making me laugh out loud, and then turn around and engage me again with some more heartbreak and seriousness. Massive kudos to Chris Hemsworth, by the way. That scene where he boasts to Rocket about how he’s absolutely up for fighting Thanos (as second time) really broke my heart. His desperate grief for his brother... Hands down, my favourite scene in the entire movie, brilliantly played by Chris Hemsworth with a stark vulnerability beneath his desperate bravado that makes my heart clench. But I felt most for Tony, already a traumatised realist... now his son-substitute has died, too, and most people around him, while he survives a mortal wound... leaving him stranded alone with his grief and guilt on an alien planet. So, a peculiar combination, almost like a tragic comedy, but it works! It means that, despite the massive runtime, this is never boring. An emotional rollercoaster ride.
Side note: All the Guardians parenting Groot. Adorable.
To wrap up my musings about the plot: I can’t help but think that they deserved to lose, for a change. And for all those impossible wins, they deserved to lose big. I’m glad I am not too invested in those characters or this would have broken me. Instead, I’m just glad they did not take Tony away, too. But there has to be something to it. Dr. Strange is no idiot and no wimp. Why would he give up his stone for a dying stranger whom he dislikes? No. There is something here...
Technically, this was well-made. They have money in spades and are willing to fork out on the things that count. Strangely, only Thanos was not as well-animated as I would have expected. The rest of the visuals were up to the expectations. The effects were good. The make-up was mixed (for example, they messed up on Thor, but did well on Gomorra). Costumes were nice. Good choice of locations, too (I recognise Edinburgh). The editing was spot-on, making this a snappy, fast-moving film, efficiently cut down to the size it needed to be. Weirdly enough, I sort of didn’t want it to end, but it had to. Alan Silvestri is back, too! He wrote a lovely score with pathos to spare. I barely noticed it during the movie, but the credits were a nice piece.
To conclude: In my opinion, this was the best Marvel film since Iron Man, with some real stakes and real loss. A good thing about having so many characters is that you can kill off quite a few before anyone even notices someone’s missing. In fact, I quite welcomed the thinning-out of the lines. Anyway, 4/5.
PS: (SPOILERS) in the light of day, after sleeping on it, I think Thanos' victory is purely down to Starlord, who at first could not kill his girlfriend and then, when he learns she died anyway, fucks up the gauntlet-stealing plan all by himself when it was really going so well... So I suppose he got what he deserved when he was among the 50%.

"The Unicorn Store" - Forgettable coming-of-age flick. I stumbled into this by accident, thinking it was a series. Anyway, this had an extremely thin and sort of predictable story. Acting was lacklustre. Brie Larson seemed like this was an important project to her but she was not able to communicate any degree of seriousness. Samuel L. Jackson treated this as the joke it was. Bottom line: 2/5.

„Avengers: Endgame“ – (possible implied spoilers) (I tried not to.) I can’t say I was overly enthusiastic about this one (by now, I’m kind of fed up with all the sequels), but after the surprisingly good experience of “Infinity War”, the serious, no-nonsense marketing (less bombast, more gravitas) and the good reviews, I did have some hopes for this. And wow! Marvel did not disappoint! They spent a generous portion of the movie on the emotional stuff, the fall-out from the last catastrophe, the trauma recovery and how it builds the characters. I was impressed, both by how this was handled and by how the script and studio committed to this aspect of the movie. It raised it to a different level, from cheesy to something to take seriously. It brings the characters closer to the audience, making them less super-human and more relatable and increasing our investment in their stakes. I’m sure that this was a risk – not everyone loved the PTSD in Iron Man 3 like I did – but it paid off big-time, adding scale and emotion to the entire venture.
The middle bit with the problem-solving step was a bit less snappy than we are used to, but allowed for more breathing room for the characters. The cast did not feel reduced at all. They filled the screen time easily and it was much easier to follow everyone (duh!). I’m in two minds about the significant dialling-down of the trademark snarky humour, but I think it would have destroyed the tone of the movie if there had been more laughs. Of the few that were in there, some did feel disruptive to the mood and only one or two were truly appropriately placed. You could tell by the reaction of the audience: rarely did they get more than a snort out of us. Mostly, people cringed. There were a couple of interesting moments where the audience was close to cheering or clapping, too. But mostly, there were tears and sniffles, both in good and bad ways. It was a great experience to feel the atmosphere in the room, and how the people reacted to what turned out to be a Marvel movie of a very different kind than they probably expected.
The obligatory fight at the end was mercifully short. I was afraid that it was going to drag on for ages just for the sake of special effects, but they compressed it beautifully. And then we ended up in a LotR kind of situation. It was a little bizarre, but I guess they did need to tie up all loose ends, because I am afraid that this one really does mark the end of the series. It felt like an ending – an appropriate one – and I think they should leave it at this. The demise of some of our favourite characters (Well, I don’t know about you, but they definitely did kill MY favourite character.), coupled with the happily-ever-after for some others, is the right point to let the series die as well.
It was very gratifying to see that the studio paid the right people the right kind of money on every end of this. The actors were clearly giving this their all, knowing it was their last hurrah. They did not seem fed up like they do in other franchises. Particularly RDJ, who has long been rumoured to be “done” with Iron Man, was worth his salt – as always. He delivered a nuanced, emotional, mesmerising performance as reluctant hero out to save the world one last time. And he made damn sure he would not be called in on the inevitable sequel (well, ending yes or no, of course there will be a sequel. It’s Marvel. They are not going to kill their golden cow, sadly, even with a near-perfect ending like this. ) The only thing where they missed the tone a bit was with Thor’s story line. That worked better in the last movie. I also loved the dynamics between the characters, how their relationships have grown from their previous disagreements. Cap and Tony finally work together as a team, and characters that felt previously ignored got a chance to shine. The situation they were in at the start of the film also seemed to mix up their roles quite a bit, which was very refreshing. For the record: I’m still 100% on Tony’s side of any argument, but it’s very hard not to root for Thanos, when you think about it rationally...
Script-wise, this seemed like an easy set-up for deus-ex-machina moments because there are just so many characters that you cannot possibly keep track of them all. This is used by the writers to save the day a couple of times, but I guess in this case, it’s fair. As explained above, they allowed room for all of their characters, their emotions and personalities. Another indicator that this was the last go: they did not compromise on character screen time and development on account of runtime. Rather, it seemed like they did not care at all about the runtime. They just wanted to finish this story properly. And while this movie did not have the fast pace of the predecessors, it did not drag in any way despite being LotR-sized.
On the technical side, this was a solid piece of work. They did not cut corners or rush, but gave this the time necessary to make a great movie. I can’t believe I’m saying this in this day and age where everything just feels like a cash cow project – even Marvel did for a good long while there -, but you could feel the passion of the people behind this. Everyone was intent on giving the fans an ending worthy of the series. Effects were delivered by Industrial Light and Magic, reliable as always, but contrary to previous movies, this one did not focus on them. It was all about the story. Alan Silvestri composed a beautiful score for this, too, emphasising the emotional clout of the events.
Ok, I’m rambling. I might think of something else later, but for now: 5/5. Not my favourite ever movie, but a total recommendation if you are in any way invested in the Marvel universe. It’s very much an Iron Man movie, too - the last one just like the first one of the series. Full circle.

Fun fact from IMDB: Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige had said that Star Trek: The Next Generation: All Good Things... (1994), the series finale episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), inspired this film. - actually, that did kind of work.

PS: I never knew crying in the cinema would work so well... I usually try to avoid it, but I think everyone did it here, so it was ok XD

„Tolkien“ – This pseudo-Biopic about my favourite fantasy author, JRR Tolkien, turn out pretty much like I expected: kind of meh. It wasn’t a bad film by any means, but it lacked a story arch that I could follow and that would create a kind of tension. The story-telling appeared rather passive. Instead of guiding the plot, the camera seemed to be more of an observer, which failed to give the film much of a direction. The script seemed a bit all over the place, not taking enough time on the supporting cast and insisting on unnecessary time jumps that seemed a bit non-sequitur. I never even learned the names of Tolkien’s three friends. The only one I could distinguish was that guy from The OA who is an absolutely terrific actor and totally deserves to be on the big screen. Obviously, I also love Nicholas Hoult who brought the stature of Tolkien to the film. I was also happy to see Colm Meaney here.

Visually, this was a clean period piece, though the images of war were a bit too much. The incomprehensible cruelty of that time should stay in the past. The vision-like stuff Tolkien was seeing was easily explained away by his fever dreams and his extremely active imagination, but it wouldn’t really make much sense to an audience without any background knowledge. Indeed, this film seemed to require an awful lot of knowledge about the mythology and life of Tolkien, and though I enjoyed the little touches and nods, I thought it was more fan service than anything.

Thomas Newman delivered a moving score to go with it all.

The verdict: 3/5.

„High Life“ – this disturbing space parable was quite strange. I did not really understand the film fully, I think. Robert Pattinson was fantastic as multi-layered criminal and single dad in space. It may seem cliché that a child would help a character like his to grow, but I think under the circumstances, this can be overlooked. It’s painful to watch him look after the little girl, lovingly raising her, when he knows their future is uncertain at the same time and there is no one around to judge him anymore. He rediscovers his humanity on this trip and that's quite satisfying to see. Then again, we have the weird and only partially explained story lines of the other inmates and their crazy doctor. A lot of brutal stuff happens. I was quite shocked when the notice came up at the beginning that this movie is 18+, but looking back, it really is full of violent sexual scenes and disturbing concepts.
The execution of the project was gritty and no-frills. This didn’t look like an expensive production. Rather, they invested where it counts: the actors (though the girl selected to play the girl later in the film was not well-cast as her acting did not live up to the talent around her). The lighting was gorgeous as well, and the colour pallet. Very atmospheric. We even got to hear another of Robert Pattinson’s beautiful tunes.
Overall, I’m not sure I’d watch this again. It seemed to fall into the same category as “Under the Skin” with Scarlet Johanson a couple of years ago: disturbing sifi. But it easily reached 2/5, maybe more.

Huh. I would have thought I had had more time for movies in the past 4 months...

Seems like my life is going nowhere, so here are more movies I've watched....

"American made" - This comedy-Tom-Cruise vehicle delivered the usual with a lot less explosives. It told the turbulent story of a (fictional?) American pilot smuggling drugs and weapons for all manner of folks, among them drug lords in South America and the US government. Tom Cruise delivered his usual suave performance, though I think he was a bit too old for the role (they did their best to make him look younger). The film hit a very interesting tone between sunny, up-beat fuck-the-establishment and an alarming, uncomfortably tightening spiral of power as the pilot - knowingly! - became the cue ball in the game between his many masters. It all ended like it had to...
Technically, this was well done. I'm sure Tom did a lot of his flying and all his stunts himself. The grainy period look came across well. Other than that, the film didn't really leave a lasting impression. It gave a few laughs. It had decent actors and a crazy story that only life can write, but didn't feel memorable to me. It didn't bring the substance I've come to expect from a Tom Cruise film, but felt kind of superficial.
a weak 3/5
PS: I really like Domhnall Gleeson. He looks like my open mic host.

„Our souls at night“ – This quiet drama about two lonely elderly people seeking solace in each other was exquisite. It was obvious that both Robert Redford and Jane Fonda are true masters of their craft, but also that they really enjoyed their work here. The sparkle in their eyes was just a pleasure to watch as these two veterans performed the roles of two widowed neighbours growing closer to each other. They were just perfect, soothing and warm like melted butter and maple syrup. The supporting roles were well-cast, too.
The script was soothingly uneventful, except for some minor crises. The pacing was gorgeously slow, just edging on dragging, but I felt that it kind of reflected the way things move for the elderly (at least that’s how it looks to an outside observer).
The technical execution was a no-frills production with beautiful tableaus and high-quality visuals, languidly edited with enough breathing room for all actors and framed by a beautiful score.
The slow pace, attention to detail and masterful acting made this a joy to watch, even if the end fell a bit below the upbeat tone of the rest of the film.
An easy 3/5 for a catastrophe-free, gentle, heart-warming piece of entertainment.

“All is lost” – I held off watching this drama about a lone man suffering ship wreck for a long time, waiting for the right moment to watch this. Finally, I felt in the mood for it, but the wait turned out to have been for nothing. This was just not a very good movie. It started out on the wrong foot: I hate movies that begin with „x days later“ or some such variation. That’s just so lazy!! If the only way you can think of to tell a story is to confront the audience with some situation and hope that the viewer wonders how the characters got to this point and therefore develops interest – that’s just a shit plan. You have to make me care about the characters first. Then you can tell a story – and don’t put the ending before that story!! However, I do give them that the sense of foreboding this managed to build in the first 10 or so minutes was remarkable.
Otherwise, the script was just not good. I appreciate what they were trying to do, but it had too many obvious logic holes. For instance, I know nothing about sailing, but when he started calmly doing the washing up and shaving while drifting into an oncoming storm, I couldn’t believe it. And then he’s on deck, steering his boat in a thunderstorm with no rain gear or anything, not even closing the porthole when he finally does remember to put something on. I did not understand why he did not salvage his boat after the storm, either. Sure, the mast is broken but it’s still a heck of a lot more comfortable and safe than a blow-up life raft – and it’s full of useful stuff! So instead of moping, I would have started scooping water! But no, he just grabbed a few choice pieces - not even a life jacket among them – and let the boat sink! And what little resources he had, he threw away. For instance, when he was struggling with his ruler and map I thought “this is where you could have used that piece of plastic you so recklessly threw overboard, you nitwit!” From the use of equipment, it is quite clear that no one who worked on this had any personal experience with getting by on limited resources. (Guess what! It’s an American movie!)
Robert Redford was powerless to save the film. Indeed, he contributed to the failure in little ways, acting out some situations which he has clearly not experienced in real life. For example, would you poor bleach over your forehead and then just open your eyes while it’s still dripping from your brow? I don’t think so. There was a calmness, but also a certain arrogance to the character. I could not fathom why his first priority was not to get the water out of his vessel... And the way he just expected the pump to do the job for him. Then he was reading with his flash light instead of conserving it to signal. And it went on like that.
Many other annoying details are down to terrible directing: e.g. after falling into the water, the guy seemed 100% dry underneath his rain cloths. How is this possible after being completely submerged?! And it continued from there. The directing was just not good.
Ok, I’ll cut this off now. It’s a pointless rant and it’s getting late. I’ll still give it 3/5 because it did not bore me, but I expected a lot more. It seemed like a lazy job by all concerned.

„Your name“ – I wanted to watch a Marvel blockbuster tonight, but couldn’t find anything on my harddrive, so I put on this animé movie instead. I have to say, I was really surprised, even though I had to deal with rudimentary subtitles for the Japanese that only told less than half of the story. The movie started out as an annoying body-swap flick with boring characters and seemingly predictable plot, but to my great surprise, they turned it around after about 20 minutes of mediocrity. I was stunned to find that the story was only beginning after that. Ok, the characters were still not really all that remarkable, but the plot kind of drew me in with just the right amount of mystery, a good helping of tension and some tear-inducing emotions. Well done!
The visuals were not what I’m used to from Ghibli, but still good. Some nice matte paintings, though the principal animations lacked the loving detail and three-dimensionality I expected. The directing was good, though. They had some really nice camera runs and good editing, too. I LOVED the score/soundtrack. Hopefully, they have that on Spotify (if I can get Spotify to work again for me...)
Very nice work. Easy 3/5. I would love to see the dubbed version.

“Demolition” – I picked up this drama about a husband losing his wife and finding strange ways to cope with the aftermath. It turned out to be a rather unusual film with a lot of weirdness. I couldn’t really get a grasp on the main character and whether he loved his wife not at all, like he claimed, or way too much and was just not getting past the anger-stage of grief. I constantly wondered what was going on in his head and that took me out of the flow of the story. What he was doing seemed absolutely crazy (also, American houses are so flimsy! No surprise they get blown away by hurricanes. You could not destroy a European-built home with a sledgehammer in this fashion.). The strangeness of his actions turned this half-way into an arthouse film.
Jake Gyllenhaal gave a good performance as a nutjob which felt strangely nuanced even though the character was not accessible. The other actors supported him well in his quest to find new meaning. Other than that, this was a solid piece of work, like building a no-frills home with a reliable contractor. Good work.
2/5 for arthousy vibes but a lack of clear direction.

„Max and Mary“ – This touching stop-motion drama packed quite the punch. It portrayed the friendship of a girl from a broken family background and a mentally ill middle-aged man in a heart-wrenchingly candid way. The characters attracted a lot of sympathy with their problems, which were a mix of environmental circumstance and human error. Starting out as an adorable children’s story with a very dark backdrop, this spiralled to the lowest lows of the human psyche in a shocking, blunt way and the ending was only a narrow save with a very dramatic flourish.
The stop-motion worked very well in focussing the story and avoiding confusion through unnecessary background detail. The camera work was particularly good. Also, this had an absolutely gorgeous score with a mix of well-known instrumental pieces, such as the famous 'Perpetuum mobile' by the Penguin Orchestra.
All in all, an unexpectedly heavy piece of a film with serious, sometimes outright disturbing themes and pictures, but it has its up-sides with endearing characters and ironic humour.
4/5
PS: Not a kids’ film.

“Operator” – this drama about a couple falling apart over developing an automated answer phone software was a bit like a knock-off / budget version “Her”. It started out promising, intriguing the audience with little details, hinting at things to come, but the story never quite pulled together. I think this may work well as a play, but on screen, it was just boring and frustrating. His character was just so annoying, and he didn’t deserve her at all. I don’t care that he had mental issues. Nobody deserves to be treated like that, least of all a caring, loving person like his wife, and she is not obligated to take his shit. I could not emphasise with most people in this film at all. The fact that the main character (and his stupid mother, too) was so utterly unlikeable made it really hard to care about what happened to him. Actually, I thought he got what he deserved. I had a pretty hard time liking any of the other characters as well.
The actors did their best, but none of them stood out as stellar either. Technically, a solid piece, but still: 1/5 Not a recommendation.

"Mary and the witches' flower" - I was in the mood for an animé and was hoping for an easy watch with no subs, but discovered my copy of this movie was in Japanese. Anyway, what a surprise this coming-of-age adventure about a little girl and a magic flower was! Sure, it had elements of Harry Potter ala "ooh! Here's a magic school and by the way, you're a witch." It also kid of reminded me of Totoro. Was it the absent parents? The cats? No idea. The story was engaging and not the usual level of predictable. The visuals were beautiful, almost Ghibli-standard, with stunning watercolour paintings of a lovely English-looking landscape for backgrounds and careful animations. The effects were gorgeous. I found the very beginning particularly impressive, with the explosions and the chase scene. That thrust me straight into the story and got me engaged to the core. Great work on sinking in that first hook! The score was also beautiful. I credit it with much of the emotion in the film. And this is where we start differing from Ghibil: Here, the music occasionally seemed to force the emotion instead of underlining it. Also, the characters were just very two-dimensional and not very interesting. Motivations and principles were very hard to pin down and only manifested in straight-forward thoughts and actions. That fell below the standard I'm used to from the likes of Miyazaki. I guess there is a reason why I love his work at Ghibli but don’t watch many other animés.
Still: all in all a very good film. An easy 3/5

"The Imitation Game" - I finally buckled up and watched this drama about mathematician Alan Turing breaking the Enigma code by building the first modern computer. It was a very solid piece of work. Benedict Cumberbatch gave a credible performance as socially awkward Alan, who (in this rendition) was probably suffering from a condition on the Autism spectrum. He did learn to fit in - somewhat - by copying the behaviour of his more socially adept lady friend, but I don't know how that would have helped him develop emotions like he shows as the story progresses. Be that as it may, Cumberbatch certainly delivered anything the script asked of him. I also enjoyed the entire troop of supporting cast members. Mark Strong was his usual mysterious self, Keira Knightly took a commendable turn as the female side-kick, though the script failed her character a little in terms of kick-ass female power. Charles Dance was enjoyable as well, and Matthew Goode was delightful, just like in The Crown, and sexy eye candy for the in-between to boot.
The story itself seemed realistic. I couldn't spot any obvious Hollywood-style embellishments, but it could have used a little tightening-up. Though the entire film was gripping and engaging from the start - I loved the narration at the beginning! - it failed to turn truly nail-biting even though it certainly had the potential for it.
On the technical side, this had beautifully detailed pictures with flawless period wardrobe and sets. While not obviously built for aesthetics, everything came together to form some gorgeous pictures every once in a while. It was all very nice to look at and the directing and editing were solid and confident, letting the actors dictate the pace a lot of the time and not the script. Everything was complemented by the awesome score by Alexandre Desplat. One of his best works, I'd say.
A credible 4/5, though I was missing the emotional compound a bit (actually, the worst was the air raid on London. That had me tearing up, watching this beautiful city get blown to bits.)

Resurrection F – Recently, I did a marathon of Dragon Ball Z Abridged because my brother has been bugging me for ages about it. It was fun. It showed me why I loved DBZ. It also showed me its flaws, but I enjoyed it. Particularly Vegeta is a fascinating character. Anyway, Resurrection came up on my Netflix. I’m quite sure I’ve seen this once before, years ago, but I could not remember anything beyond single flashes of pictures, so it was essentially a new movie for me. As Netflix only offered the Japanese or German dub, I chose German – and wow, what a ride! The dubbing was hilarious, almost as fun as DBZA. The constant use of expletives and colloquial language gave the thing a totally different tint. I’m quite sure DBZ was never like that, though I have not seen it in German in about 20 years. The story was the usual DBZ thing with a mighty villain and Goku obsessed with training. What I loved here, though, was the casual relationship with Vegeta, the rivalry, which was violent but friendly and heartfelt none the less. Also, the other Z fighters. Some beautiful friendships there.
Visually, this surprised me with how bearable the new, digital format is. The lines are too straight and clean, however. It kind of takes the romance away to see everything so sleek and polished, the characters positively gleaming. The computer animations did provide a few nice frames, though, and I liked the score, too. The whole experience was really satisfying, especially since it didn’t take about 10 years to defeat Freezer.
All in all, a good watch for nostalgic reasons. Objectively, this is probably a 2/5, but I’m going to give it 4/5 because I enjoyed myself so immensely.

“Rocco” – not quite sure how I came across this docu-biopic about an Italian porn star on Netflix, but it’s a very interesting watch. Shocking, revealing (no pun intended) and emotional. It paints a portrait of Rocco Siffredi and the inner workings of what, on the surface, seems like a calculating chauvinist. What’s fascinating is the charisma he naturally exudes, and I realised that I once knew someone who is very much like him in his approach to sexual encounters. What held my attention is the absolutely breath-taking cinematography of this film and gorgeous, perfect lighting combined with an atmospheric score. It gives everything a sad, melancholic tint and communicates the involuntary, forced nature of sex addiction very well. How can a loving husband and father also be a passionate porn star? It’s a harrowing, honest tail, candidly told by its protagonist. It feels a bit like he is trying to banish his demons by disclosing his emotions to the world, his motifs, his past, the story of his life, his struggles,... and though he seems like a morally disgusting person, I can’t help but feel sympathy for him. There was even an absurd kind of humour, for example, when they very seriously discuss artistic choice and plot development, character motivation etc. and it still ends up sounding like the cheesiest porno you can think off, even though they supposedly put a lot of background work into it.
On a side note, it was bewildering how much this Spiegler guy looked like Harvey Weinstein. They could have been twins. Is this deviancy genetic? Yet his workers seemed to genuinely like him. They also attempted to show a feminist side to the business, giving the female actors plenty of room to talk, and they really made it look like they were equal, consenting partners in acts that most people would find depraved and disgusting.
What fascinated me and almost made me a bit jealous is the ease of touch between Rocco and his actresses. I’m sure it’s partly the Italian nature, partly the business mentality and partly his personality, but it’s so nice to be able to assume permission is given for hugging and cuddling close.
All in all, a technically extremely well-made piece with complexity hidden in the gorgeous cinematography, offering a look into a hidden business. 3/5 (cinematography 5/5)

„A star is born“ –Got myself down to the cinema after having had to wait for this drama about the budding music career of a singer for what feels like ages and I have to say it was worth the wait and it lives up to all the buzz. The story did not eff around in the beginning. They jumped straight into the plot, efficiently building up their characters along the way in a very economical fashion that I enjoyed. From a feel-good movie, it turned into one of those where everything was just going too well and you just expected something terrible to happen to balance it all. I thought they progressed the plot a bit too quickly, even, reaching what I thought would be the climax after maybe a third of the runtime. Due to this, the unfolding story seemed a bit aimless in the middle, reaching a plateau; but it soon became deliciously obvious that while we were watching one star being born and ascending to the heavens, we were also seeing another one descending... In this respect, I loved the relationship between the main characters, because he genuinely seemed to love her without any agenda, never envying her sudden success in which he had had such a hand, even though he was struggling so much. She, in turn, was an honest talent, not a gold digger using him as a step ladder. It made me feel all warm inside to see two main characters that didn’t seem to have any hidden dark sides, despite all the trauma in their past.
The two musicians were portrayed to perfection by acting veteran Bradley Cooper and the one and only Lady Gaga. And I have to say: Lady Gaga delivered a masterful début. An absolute breakout performance! She looked in control at all times – even when it seemed she wasn’t, she turned out to be controlling her scene – and she gave a nuanced, heartfelt, incredibly brave and lifelike performance. To go all in with such an emotionally and physically demanding role for her first screen acting gig demonstrates an almost foolish bravery, but also gave her the opportunity to dazzle everyone. Acting seems to come naturally to her.
Bradley Cooper was absolutely awe-inspiring as well. I’ve never paid much attention to him before, but he was nothing short of stunning here. He and Lady Gaga had the most amazing chemistry. They looked so comfortable around each other and with the physical affection. A beautiful couple. The finale was some incredible acting by Cooper. You could tell from his eyes what he was going to do – and then they presented the conclusion in such a stark, minimalistic way. Like a silent exclamation mark. Blue and red flashing lights. Gorgeous!
On to the technical side: An awe-inspiring directing début by Bradley Cooper! Incredible first piece of work! I was absolutely floored when I saw his name in the credits because this was a truly well-made film. He gave the team room to work, clearly not wasting his time on small mistakes, but taking the great stuff and editing out the rest. This led to a few strange editing choices, but hey! The lighting was particularly beautiful, and I liked the natural look of things. The only inconsistency was Cooper’s make-up, that changed from carrot tan to white, perfect skin a few times too often. The runtime of 135 minutes was a bit long. I may have wanted to see this edited down. Then again, it’s a joy to watch these two talents at work, so no rush.
The music was great. I expected nothing less. I’m only a bit sad that Lady Gaga does not show this side of her musical talent very often. Why can’t this be the music she publishes? Her voice is very good and Bradley Cooper totally sells the rock musician 100%! Hell, this makes ME want to be a rock musician, it was so inspiring to watch (not the alcoholism part ).
In a side note, I was a bit surprised by how they portrayed and handled the tinnitus. I think its fantastic that they put this condition into such a prominent spotlight, making it a major plot point. But what he seems to be suffering from is stress-related tinnitus (the on-off nature of it) combined noise-induced hearing loss, so two different conditions. Be that as it may, as a tinnitus sufferer myself, I can attest to the gruelling sensation of constant noise in your head and I can see how this would wear Coopers character down. I’m sure this was a major factor in the developments. Even though my tinnitus is compensated, the thought of never ever ever being able to experience silence again makes me want to cry. It’s very hard to bear, and it is affecting my hearing more and more. However, unlike Cooper’s character, I religiously wear earplugs. I’m a hobby musician myself and I want to preserve my hearing as long as possible. But he’s right: during gigs, you can’t really hear if you wear them.
Finally, the producer guy: I was so shocked because I met a producer exactly like him! I mean, he was a look-alike. Don’t know about the back-stabbing, but he did seem like the personality type... The movie did highlight the dark side of the music business.
All in all: an inspirational film. Though it miss-portrayed the path of a music career - it takes much longer, even if you do have all the right cards up your sleeve – it makes me want to explore that for myself a bit more. It was also inspirational insofar as both Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper delivered respectable débuts. An easy 4/5 Would watch again.

"The Accountant" - this action flick with Matt Damon was actually not bad. Very violent, but decent entertainment. It's cheesy, but I like movies with a badass main character who is cool and competent and, for once, does not fuck up. He seems completely in control and it's kind of a nice change of pace to just lean back and trust he can handle himself instead of constantly worrying when disaster is going to strike. It was not your typical Matt Damon role, but I guess he wanted to try this genre before he gets too old. This also had JK Simmons (good as always) and Anna Kendrick (not sure why she was necessary).
Story-wise, this was a bit shallow. I thought it was completely inappropriate to explain the violent genius of this guy with the Autism trope. Plus, Matt Damon was NOT convincing at all as an autistic character. There were tons of details that did not seem right in his body language and demeanour. He came across more as a sociopath.
As this was a stunt-heavy production, I'm glad to see they knew how to invest their money. No fussy, flashy fight sequences, just plain, efficient combat. Very refreshing.
This was not a nail-biting thriller, but on 1.2 speed, it made for a sufficiently tight movie.
3/5 would consider watching again.

The Shape of Water – This cross-species romance did not live up to the hype at all. Rather, it reminded me of the Lego movie: full of metaphors and weird, cartoonish characters, who never left the two-dimensionality of the screen. There was no trace of romance or chemistry. Rather, Elisa seemed a bit dim-witted and naïve and the fish guy about as intelligent as a toddler. Far from equals.
The acting was ok, I guess, but nothing outstanding. The production had a strange, surreal look that sort of grated. I expected a more serious sifi piece. Fish guy was well-animated (and with good prosthetics) but I thought the entire design was lazily humanoid. I’m just glad that my only other Guillermo del Toro experience (that really traumatised me and continues to haunt me to this day) has taught me to expect graphic violence from his work – and I was not wrong.
So, I’m inclined to give this a 2/5, but may be persuaded for a 3/5. It just wasn’t that good.

Laurence of Arabia - I had time for this classic tonight, so I put it on. Though I can see on what kind of an epic scale this tale about cocky British officer fighting alongside Arabs was produced, I also thought it was terribly long-winded and felt somehow lacking. The structure was that of a Shakespearean play, with things spiralling out of control in several consecutive acts. I did not understand Laurence: he starts out with romantic notions of warfare, but soon gets a reality check. He is traumatised, discovering uncomfortable truths about himself and wants to stop the downward spiral. Yet his thirst for fame seems to win every time, driving him deeper and deeper into depression and almost to madness. In the end, I think he is actually quite suicidal (I would expect he'll drown himself in the Mediterranean on the way home). Peter O'Tool excelled at the more delicate emotional bits. It's a crying shame that the movie didn't give him more of those to do. Omar Sharif also gave a great performance as an adversary who learned to respect Laurence, even becoming a genuine friend in the end. I think this film is ripe for a re-make, with tightened story telling and more character work to illustrate the human drama.
Technically, this piece must have cost a fortune. All those extras, all the animals, all the on-location shoots with sand and sun and wind... Well done! I was also surprised by the PG violence. Nowadays it's so unusual to see a film just spare the audience the exposure. A very strange feeling. I think it's sad that these days, everything always has to be so graphically violent and people don't even notice (I only noticed because there was, technically, no violence in this film. Only implied.)
I can see why this film is so highly regarded, but it's not suitable for my modern cinematic pallet. 3/5 for effort and a few touching moments of Laurence's tortured soul shining through. Though I should take that all away for not a single female being in this film.

'Bohemian Rhapsody' - Went to the cinema to catch this Freddy Mercury / Queen biopic and did not regret it. Rami Malek really filled his role as Freddy. He was totally committed and particularly the on-stage scenes came across really well. I enjoyed his band comrades as well. The friendship they had was beautiful. Also: Aidan Gillen! Woohoo (got his weight under control again, too). The movie made me realise just how many Queen songs I actually know (and it's quite a lot) and that I ACTUALLY like one or two! They really were an inspirational quartet. I thought it was nice how they portrayed everyone's input into the creative process, too. Nicely done. The drama aspect was a bit lost in the lengthy wanderings, though, and the plot failed to tighten properly. Some of the subtleties were lost in the editing as well, which was - overall - much too fast for my taste.
So, yeah: visuals could have been better. Rami's face lends itself to lighting. Shadow is his friend. That's about all. The cuts were too fast, the balance between close-ups and wide-angle didn't work,... I think this could have been even better in the hands of eg. Ron Howard.
All in all, a good film, though. A watcheable 3/5

Robin Hood – (The one with Taron Egerton) This new re-telling of the age-old story had its good and bad points. The cast did their best to hold the script together, but I was not entirely convinced by Taron Egerton’s performance and I really disliked Marion. The Sheriff of Nottingham was not evil enough – yet another one where they try to explain away a bit of his twisted soul with childhood trauma – and actually made some good points throughout the film, which made it hard to truly root against him. The only guy I really enjoyed watching was Jamie Dornan. His character was a bit misguided, but well-intentioned – which is why the end made no sense AT ALL. What a shabby set-up for a sequel.
The script was barely ok, but terribly superficial, with half-assed dialogue and pseudo-philosophy. Visually, the entire thing never really came together. I acknowledge that they didn’t ever intend to present a period piece costume film, but the look was just distractingly inconsistent to the point where it looked just plane lazy. I was wondering about everybody’s perfectly tailored, clean office clothing complete with pin-striped suits and shirts, and tight T-shirts everywhere. And those leather coats! And then they had hauberks and crusader’s outfits. The look of Nottingham also seemed so obviously cobbled together from steampunk fantasy, horrible CGI of a pseudo-English country town and clearly distinguishable, extensive shots of somewhere in Croatia/Mediterranean. Everything was just too inconsistent.
And then there were those annoying details, like constantly pulling arrows from wounds. These people are supposed to be seasoned warriors. Why would they do such things? At least they did ok on the archery, though it did not feature nearly as much as I would have liked. I’m an Olympic-style target archer myself (thought I shoot barebow. Sights are just cheating ) and a lot of what they did looked fairly credible, though you could see that Taron was trained up under time pressure. The extras were given very light-weight prop bows and that showed in the handling of them, but they did a decent job. The fight choreographies could have been much better, though. And the potential for humour was not nearly exhausted. I expected there to be a lot of cheeky wit and one-liners, but no. (I might have missed some of it, too, because there were two young boys sitting behind me – younger than 12 – and they were chatting away incessantly throughout the film. I told them off in the middle, but it didn’t help. Safe to say, I read them the riot act when the credits rolled. I think they were sufficiently cowed. Hopefully they will not do that to anyone else ever again.)
Anyway, due to the lacklustre script with plenty of missed opportunities, the utterly inconsistent look and lack of humour, this is only a watcheable 3/5. It seemed a pretty indulgent piece of work.

“The Impossible” – Since I can’t watch romance any more (again) and wanted a cry-film without terminal illness, there was not much choice tonight, but I’ve been waiting to re-watch ‘The Impossible’ for ages now, so it fit in perfectly. This drama following a family thought the 2004 tsunami that devastated Thailand delivers everything. Heart-breaking drama, nail-biting tension, tears of happiness, visceral action,... all wrapped up in some great visuals and fantastic acting by a superb cast. Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts do their jobs with passion and skill, but the true stand-out performances come from the children. Tom Holland absolutely shines as the teenage son having to grow up in the space of seconds, becoming a care-giver, rescuer, organiser, someone to lean on, to depend on. Yet Holland gives a vulnerability to his character that is astonishing. You can see the character desperately trying to suppress his trauma so he can take care of the people around him. The brief scenes with Oaklee Pendergast and Samuel Joslinwere just as impressive to watch. How children so young can give such natural, emotion-laden performances – it’s just mind-blowing. In the end, each of the family cast carried their own weight as equals. Amazing work.
The script was nail-biting, even if you already know the outcome. It combined natural and human disaster with a fierce tale of survival and endurance, of getting up again when you fall, of preserving your humanity even in the deepest night. Inspiring work.
The visual side of things was breath-taking as well. The cinematography managed to find beauty even in the wake of disaster. The colour pallet was well-chosen and the sets just looked incredible with their level of detail. The best bit is the CGI: the visceral wrench that the sight of the tsunami wave causes is awesome. The sound design makes the wave almost palpable as well. What an experience. They invested the right kind of money into the right place here. Also, they should get points for continuity and directing: the wardrobe and make-up department did a great job.
Finally, beside the fantastic overall sound design (not sure I ever mentioned that before, but it was really noteworthy in this film) the score was perfect. Most scenes did not need any music to have a profound emotional impact and the composer respected that, only providing what was necessary. Only towards the end do we start hearing more of the score as the story builds further, but the first half or 2/3 of the film are built around the roaring of nature and the awful silence after the storm instead of pianos and strings.
All in all, a great piece of work with the emotional clout of a proverbial sledgehammer.
5/5

‘Downsizing’ – what an unfortunate failure of a movie. This was really trying to address some very current, very important themes, and had some great ideas about the threat we pose to ourselves and how to deal with it, the future of humanity etc. but also universal themes of kindness and community. This is why it was a real shame that this movie took over 1 hour to develop a story!! Even though I watched at 1.2 speed, after 20 minutes I was bored to death as a story failed to materialise. I kept thinking the most exciting thing to happen would be if birds got into the protected dome of Leisureland. I was seconds away from switching it off, skipping through the remaining time, but luckily, I caught the turning point when the plot got interesting. The Vietnamese character was incredible. First of all, FANTASTIC acting. Second of all, I know Asians who are a little bit like that so I’m guessing the characterisation was not that far off the mark. I admired her unwavering devotion to the community and the people around her, even in the face of her own personal misery. Her no-nonsense approach is something that Western people could use instead of politely talking in circles using politically correct terms and going absolutely nowhere. The romance was a bit too much and not really believable, though. Matt Damon did the job he was paid for, but the script let him down. I know he can do better, but he economised and just gave the movie as much as absolutely necessary. I’ve never really seen Christoph Walz in anything (wait. I saw Water for Elephants), but he was a bit of an oddball character. Thinking about it, they did have some pretty comical characterisations for all kinds of nationalities, making the Norwegians into a nature-loving hippie people, the Serbian into an opportunistic low-life and the Asians and Hispanics into lower-class working people. I get that this was probably due to the movie trying to caricaturise modern-day society and the way the world works, but I can see why some people might find it offensive.
Anyway, the visuals were surprisingly good. I liked that they used lenses with a very shallow depth of field to communicate the small scale to the viewer. Still, it was hard to suspend my disbelief as physics works completely differently at that scale...
So, they do get 2/5 for turning it around in the second half and making it a half-way decent film, after all.

„Fantastic beastes – The Crimes of Grindelwald“ – (may contain spoilers) A friend of mine got me a free ticket for this. Otherwise, I would not have watched this continuation of the Fantastic Beasts Harry Potter spin-off. Fair warning: my thoughts about this are going to be just as jumbled as the film. Let’s start at the beginning. This film set a new record: it had me bored in under 3 minutes. The chase at the beginning was so unnecessary. Why the hell should I, as an audience member, care about some random dude fighting a daring escape from his prison? Sure, I know it’s Grindelwald, the supposed villain of the movie – though we never really learn what exactly these ‘crimes of Grindelwald’ are – but honestly? A mediocre, unnecessarily destructive chase scene is not going to draw me in if I feel indifferent about all characters involved. This is a mistake many movies make these days: they neglect to make audiences care first and impress second. Everyone just wants to floor you with their special effects instead of the story. Bad plan.
Anyway, onwards. The plot started developing marginally as the film progressed, though I felt like it still expected audience members to care too much just for the sake of it. There were just too many sub-plots of individual characters to follow. Overall, this thing was too long and convoluted with all that family bullshit. A bit like GoT, but dumber. It simply does not matter to me one iota who was who’s son/daughter/brother/mother/nanny whatever. And now there is another Dumbledore???
Granted, Jude Law was fantastic as Albus Dumbledore. I did not expect that at all. I would have seen him more as Grindelwald (What possessed them to cast Jonny Depp as Grindelwald, I do not know. Maybe he’s a wizard and put the casting director under Imperius.), but I concede that Jude was just the right kind of charismatic, charming, yet mysterious and pensive to be the big D. I liked that they broadly hinted at why Dumbledore would be so reluctant to fight Grindelwald, but the blood oath thing was just a lazy excuse so they would not have to come out and say that they were gay lovers for the longest time. That said, this story had such potential to become a real drama - an interesting parable about right and wrong, the concept of the ‘greater good’ that both Dumbledore and Grindelwald believed in, and two lovers caught on separate sides. It could have been a powerful movie about love not knowing gender, about following two young idealists and seeing how they set out on the same path, but how their ideas slowly develop into polar opposites even though they are based on the same concept... and how that ultimately tears them apart and makes them – reluctantly, on Dumbledore's side – into mortal enemies. Instead, this movie failed to explain the concept of the ‘greater good’ that the conflict was based on. Indeed, Grindelwald was the only one who mentioned it (maybe twice), but it seemed to be a line just to tick a box somewhere. It was never explained, and neither did I understand what exactly was so evil about Grindelwald because they never really explained his agenda either. He didn’t make a whole lot of sense in his grand speech, but neither did the rest of the script – and if you have exposition like that, putting it at the beginning of the whole damn movie would be great.
As for the other characters: Eddie Redmayne is, frankly, wasted on Newt, but his young colleague playing the character in his Hogwarts days has real talent as well: he got Eddie’s mannerisms, which were developed for the role, down pat. Newt himself is clearly on the autistic spectrum, which is fine. It’s one of the few good things about this movie in terms of overarching, universal themes: it’s quite inclusive. It also has Queenie, the annoyingly dumb airhead, Jacob, a surprisingly likeable Muggle, and... who else? All the other characters were so forgettable, I don’t even know. Except for the black guy – but I only remember him because he was – completely randomly! – quoting Jesus’ dying words. What. The. Hell? Are American wizards Christians? (was the character even American?)
Visually, this had some pros (I really liked the design of the ministry and the Chinese dragon thing looked awesome!) and cons (generally overindulgent visual effects of sometimes questionable quality). The lighting was beautiful and they had lovely costumes. The editing, however, was a bit on the annoying side, a bit fast and with too many close-ups and not enough overview – and together with the mediocre (at best) script, things suddenly made sense during the end credits: directed by David Yates. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why JKR keeps working with the director who single-handedly managed to destroy everything in the HP franchise after movie 4. I just want to rip my hair out when I see his name. I love the HP series, but JKR has questionable taste. (oh, by the way, did I mention that my new flatmate used to go out with her? The world is such a tiny, tiny place. Six degrees of separation and all that.) The score, after some starting difficulties, was great. Especially the final epic piece. The style seemed familiar – and that’s because it was James Newton Howard. Love the guy. Good to know he’s still around.
Bottom line, too long, too many complicated family trees, a wasted opportunity to tell a truly interesting story. I have no hope for the next instalment. 2/5

Aquaman – I was excited about this action comic book movie due to its fun trailer and good reviews. As entertainment, it did not exactly disappoint – only in so far as it was fairly average. The story about a boy becoming king could have been told in a far more exciting way. I was looking forward to seeing him discover his powers, learn how to control them and come into his own. Instead, most of that part of the story was presented in flashbacks. When the film starts, he is already a cocky vigilante, which is fun to watch, but I like a vulnerable hero better. The script had many flaws, first and foremost the lame, predictable dialogue. Many, MANY times I was able to predict the dialogue verbatim. Seriously, zero points for creativity. The rest of the movie also stole shamelessly from everything from LotR and Harry Potter to the Matrix and Avatar. Furthermore, what annoyed me, was the extraordinary disregard for physics. I’m used to being asked to suspend my disbelief, abut this was a bit over the top (e.g. a metal suit will not protect a human falling off a cliff. Ever. I was also constantly wondering how this energy source of their works. It looked like electricity to me, but they are under water. It must be a hell of a lot of work to insulate all those cables and contacts. In salt water, no less!) To conclude with the script, the mythology was more than flimsy. Just like the ‘age’ of Ultron was about 2 days, the millennium of living under water was enough to have several different species evolve... I would have been fine with leaving it as an indeterminable time frame, but no! They had to be stupidly specific about it.
The acting was good, though I did not see the point of having Nicole Kidman here. Jason Momoa was perfect casting, though. He has the physical presence to BE Aquaman. I enjoyed William Dafoe’s performance as well, and Patrick Wilson reminded me strongly of Lee Pace as Thranduil or Jason Isaacs as Malfoy. Overall, there were too many characters, though, and their connections were way too convoluted. It took me ages to figure out who is which king, who’s child is who’s sibling and what kingdom goes where. A bit more exposition would have been helpful in this case. Anyway, the kid actors were stunning, too.
Oh, and what was with the sexist sea monster? [spoiler] Only a true KING can pass it, but not the rightful QUEEN of Atlantis??? Rubbish! It made no sense that Atlana could not. And then the monster had a female voice (back-stabber!) and despite being millennia old, spoke perfect modern-day English. What?! That really annoyed me.
Visually, the effects were about average for present standards. I can see how this would have been great in 3D, though. The animations for the floating hair were of mixed quality. You could see the visual filters warring with the actual animation. Orm’s hairdo was a thing of wonder: under water, it looked like a complicated, cool braiding technique, but it was actually way too short to be braided in any way whatsoever. I wonder if that was intentional. It really bugged me. Also, for something taking place under water, they had an awful lot of fiery explosions. Editing, lighting, costumes: all pretty standard.
The overall pacing was a bit too slow. I liked that they did not draw out the fight scenes like most movies do, but there were entirely too many of them.
Finally, they do get all the points lost above back for using Sigur Ros in the soundtrack. ‘Takk’ was their first album I ever listened to and it still has a special place with me. Actually, I really enjoyed all of the soundtrack – though it was WILDLY inconsistent – and the score was great, too. It had elements from several composers, but you could hear the Gregson-Williams family heritage, even though it was by little brother Rupert. Good work!
Overall, a watcheable 3/5, but it had potential for more.
PS: this film reminded me why I prefer to watch films on my own at home: I had trouble with the acoustics in the cinema and was longing for subtitles. Particularly Jason Momoa’s snarky dialogue was largely an indiscernible rumbling to me. I would have loved subtitles! And there were places where I would have absolutely needed to pause the film to let my brain catch up.

'Roma' - First off, what's with the title? Is it the city? Is it the ethnic group? No idea, because this drama about a housekeeper in 1970ies Mexico is about neither, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, I was - incidentally - in exactly the right mood for this today. Any other night, I would have probably despaired of the slow, even pace and the mundane day-to-day lives of these characters. I didn't really see the point of the narrative, except to provide a still life of a bygone era. I did love the foreshadowing, the symbolism and hints, the careful details in the background... It gave me a feeling of security in knowing I, as an audience member, was in good hands, and this was not a film that was just belted out like most productions are these days.
The acting, was absolutely awe-inspiring. Especially the lead (Yalitza Aparicio) was stunning, but also the kids and the mom. The directing was masterful as well. It was incredibly satisfying to see Cuarón trust his actors to carry this movie and giving them endless takes to unfold and develop their characters. Scenes ran for many minutes without any cuts. This gave the competent cast the chance to build three-dimensional personalities for their roles that went beyond the script. This made them seem far more alive and made them feel somehow more immediate and closer to the audience.
The complete lack of a score only registered with me now that I'm writing this review. The film didn't need it. The actors were able to convey all emotions without the aid of a sweeping orchestra.
The choice of black-and-white does not usually attract me, but the cinematography of this was clearly so thought-through that it just worked without seeming either dated or like a lazily converted colour film. The set and consume designers knew what they were doing, as did the photographer.
All in all, a quiet but exquisitely well-made piece of art. A movie to be proud of. Still: 2/5 for very little entertainment value. (4.5/5 for arthouse value alone)

"The Favourite" -Well, this costume drama about Queen Anne and her ladies-in-waiting was something different, for a change! Olivia Coleman was fascinating as the queen, building an intriguing character: it was never quite clear whether she really was this naive, child-like puppet, easily manipulated by those closes to her, or whether she did have a bit of a spark in her, secretly toying with her subjects. Emma Stone as angel-faced, calculating back-stabber and social climber was delightful, and Rachel Weisz reminded me a lot of Rachel in 'My cousin Rachel': it was never quite clear where her loyalties really lay: with the queen or with herself, whether she just had gotten used to the power she held, or truly thought she was helping. Nicholas Hoult was a joy as a callus, yet charming politician, and responsible for many laughs in this surprisingly funny film.
The script contained a sort of dry gallows' humour that I found very entertaining (I noticed yet again that I laughed at other things than the British audience). Overall, I was gratified to see that the film offered something new to the audience. Finally, a movie that did not feel like I had seen it a million times before. Great job on that! The plot was unpredictable and though I wouldn't exactly say that it contained remarkable twists, it did have a few moments that catch one off guard.
Visually, this was stunning as well. The intricate sets and costumes were remarkable in their detail and nothing short of beautiful in their composition, as was the awe-inspiring cinematography that used lots of natural, gorgeous lighting (though it did make for a lot more candles and fires than seemed reasonable in medieval times). Overall, this was just a pleasure to look at. I was a bit baffled by the choice of lenses, though. They used a lot of fish-eye lenses that distorted the picture, sometimes up to the point of looking slightly grotesque. I am inclined to see it as a means of artistic expression, probably symbolising the warped perception of the characters and the slightly satirical tilt to the narrative.
All in all, an entertaining 3/5, because it did feel a bit over-long.
PS: I was pleased to recognise Hampton Court Palace as one of the shooting locations

The Last Unicorn - I was in the mood to re-watch this classic, guaranteed to make me cry. It remains a fantastic film, gorgeously done and with a timeless message of courage and redemption. I watched the English dub and was not too impressed with the voice acting, even though greats like Christopher Lee, Mia Farrow and Jeff Bridges were involved. Particularly Mia Farrow's singing was quite cringy, actually, but I just absolutely love the songs by America and the moving score. (Actually, I got the original CD with all the music, back in the day when CDs where expensive.)
I had read the book years ago and while I did not like it particularly much, I though that the film did an absolutely brilliant job to integrate little nods and touches and, ultimately, the movie - for once - ended up being much better than the book. The aimless philosophical metaphors and allegories of Beagle were distilled down to the essentials, but not in an on-the-nose way. And would you believe it? (spoilers) I never realised before that Unicorn could never have defeated the Red Bull if she hadn't spent some time as a human. So the magic DID know what it was doing! Only being human taught her the resilience she needed and the human emotions brought her the motivation she was lacking when she first faced the bull.
The visuals are dominated by a quite unique animation style with its own brand of aesthetics. The backdrops are beautiful and the pictures simple, but with thoughtful touches and details.
Anyway, I love this film. 4/5 for being a genuine fairytale, true and full of wisdom.

„How to train your dragon 3“ – I have been looking forward to this conclusion of one of my favourite movie sagas for months and months and have been trying very hard not to spoiler myself with watching trailers etc. (couldn’t avoid the one I saw at the cinema that one time, though...). Now, I was waiting for the right time to watch this because I wanted to be in the mood to enjoy it (I’ve been in a dark place these past few weeks and the movie would have been wasted on me, but tonight was good )
Anyway, this film definitely did not disappoint, as I am pleased to say. At first I was sceptical: third instalments are rarely good, and I was afraid that this trilogy had use up all its shot long ago. Also, there were way too many kids in the theatre and I was afraid that they would not be able to keep quiet – but they turned out to be well behaved. The adults in the theatre were much more of a problem because throughout the entire length of the film, people just kept running in and out of the theatre. It was quite annoying. But I digress again.
The plot has definitely grown with its characters. I love how everyone has matured, yet still kept their essence. The character designers did a bang-up job, both with the visuals and the inner workings. The story didn’t exactly have darker elements than the second film, but the threat was made more intense by an extremely devious, cold villain. Where Drago Bloodvist was just plain evil, this new guy has an icy cruelty to him that produces a creeping unease that gives the film a slightly different flavour and a sense of real peril, like something might actually go wrong for the heroes. Yet, (uh, spoiler) Hiccup prevails with his usual brand of brains and wit. The humour was not always as light-hearted or as frequent as in the first film, but that was to be expected. I commend them, though, for putting Hiccup up against some real challenges and letting us watch him fail and grow from those experiences.
The funniest and cutest moments were provided by Toothless (and Hiccup). The mating dance had me almost crying with laughter (silently, I might add, as nobody else was laughing). The friendship these two share is just so beautiful. But the plot also provided suitable amounts of grown-up themes and drama that had me crying for a fair bit (in a good way). Hiccup’s sacrifice had me in wide-eyed shock... I enjoyed the hints at Gobbler’s romance and the mature, healthy way that Hiccup and Astrid handled their relationship. I would say, that was almost a role model performance for the kids in the audience. Though there was a lot of romance going on in the film – the characters have aged, so biology kicks in – I was determined to push that to the back of my mind and not let it spoil my enjoyment (at this point, I usually can’t even read romantic stories without feeling depressed...). I thought the ending was just beauuutiful! I LOVED it. It was a bit like Harry Potter, but done well. Watching Hiccup as a dad just warms my heart to boiling point. Just absolutely gorgeous and it did not feel tacked-on in the least. Rather, I was even sort of expecting it. This form of closure, of coming full circle made the film – and the trilogy – feel complete.
Visually, this had a lot to offer, as well, upholding the high standards set by its predecessors. I particularly loved the silky texture of Hiccup’s hair, and how he slowly grows fluff on his chin, and the UV-light hidden world scenes were gorgeous. The effects, the textures, the lighting... all solid work. Still: I’m glad they did not make this into a 3D-focussed production. There were a few quite breath-taking panoramic panning shots, too. The editing was very comprehensive as well. All in all, just a joy for the eyes.
John Powell recycled all his music for this one once again. I was not too impressed with that in terms of creativity, especially since he mangled my favourite theme, but it still fit.
All in all, I would definitely watch this again, but I don’t have that many cinema vouchers.
Easy 4/5.
PS: as much as I would love to see more movies with Hiccup and Toothless, I would rather they stop while they are still on top, and this definitely was a fitting ending. Perfect, I'd say, even.

“Green Book” – you could say I got a 2-for-1 on this one. I had researched the schedules and as this was one right after HTTYD3, I just kind of snuck in This story about the unlikely friendship between an Italian-American and a black musician got off to a bit of a wonky start. I did not feel at home in this movie at all during the endless minutes of introducing Viggo Mortensen’s character. But wow, did they take off after that. The film starts slow, but then gradually develops a warmth and a very particular kind of texture and flavour that I have not seen in cinema before. I’m really impressed that this was the second film this year that finally felt like I was watching something new. Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali – with the help of the script - developed their characters beautifully. The jarring imbalance between the almost-mobster and the cultured musician gradually transforms into a gorgeous balance, with the weight shifting from a teacher-student or boss-employee kind of relationship to mutual friendship where the learning goes both ways. It was heart-warming to see them genuinely win each other over without it seeming forced by the script at all, and how Viggo’s character takes on his job with such seriousness and earnestness after the initial reluctance is just so nice to watch. In turn, it is lovely to see the pianist slowly loosening up and letting someone be his friend, for once, instead of his servant. It was amazing, too, how the script managed to make such content seem light-hearted and comedic in front of a backdrop of racial bigotry. Against all expectations, this movie was really funny. Amazingly, I loved the ending on this one as well. I simply knew it would be this way because Don just driving off felt so jarringly wrong, so I was expecting what happened next and I was extremely pleased with the outcome. Despite everything, this was a feel-good movie.
The technical side was handled well, too, though I would not say this was a visual feast. It felt like it rested mostly on its actors, but that was ok. These characters deserved to be developed like this.
I would give this a 4/5 as well, but if it came down to it, I would re-watch HTTYD3.

I also saw the Netflix show "Sex Education" with the wonderful Asa Butterfield (I've been dying to see more of him) and the lovely Gillian Anderson (saw her live on stage recently), two good reasons to take some time for this series. Other than the terrific acting, there is not much too it, though. It's a classic coming-of-age drama, albeit with some more serious undertones than is usual for these things.

Another Saturday night, another failed date. This time, he paid for dinner, at least, which I was not expecting. Back home early to put on a movie... seems to be happening a lot, judging by the list below.

"The Captains" - watched this documentary by William Shatner about himself and all other Star Trek captains. Not a great piece of work. Lots of self-adulation. Avery Brooks is mad as a box of squirrels on crack (I mean, he is seriously completely out of his mind. None of what he says makes sense, so he just tries to speak in jazz music. Completely gone.) Patrick Steward has lost none of his dignity and charisma. I still love him. Kate Mulgrew is an admirable, formidable woman and Scott Bakula is just adorable in his puppy enthusiasm. All amazing people... but Shatner himself? Though I truly admire his direct line of questioning, the misogynistic discussion he had with Kate made me livid - how he tried to get her to say that women are not as suited for the captains' chair because of their hormones! Wow. Makes me want to puke.
Still, it was nice to have a them all back for a while. Picard forever! I owe him so much.
PS: Chris Pine!

PPS: Picard will be BACK! But after the train wreck that is “Discovery”, I’m not sure I want to see the way they destroy his character...

„The space between us“ - I watched this sifi coming-of-age story on my flight over to Iceland. Though it was an entertaining enough movie, featuring greats such as Gary Oldman and Asa Butterfield, the plot was handled poorly. The first thing was that there is only one female in this crew of six. I was immediately thinking that this can’t end well and that the gender imbalance will destroy this mission when the guys start fighting over who gets into her pants. Then the writers stepped on my toes by accusing the only female in the crew as behaving irresponsibly for living out her sexuality. That was grossly unfair and because there are no other women in this film, the only female character has to take all the weight of the misogyny, effectively turning her into another Eva. For your information, screen writers: females can get pregnant even if they behave in the most responsible fashion imaginable. There is always a slight chance protection might fail. It is despicable to imply that it is therefore irresponsible for women to have sex at all if they can’t afford a pregnancy. Shame on you.
Side note: a baby in the first trimester is not that large yet as what’s seen on the ultrasound.
Also, I was curious to see how they would sustain the child with a dead mother (stupidly the only female in the crew) and all grocery stores on Mars fresh out if infant formula - and suddenly its 16 years later??? Also, 16 years and they have not managed to devise a cardio and muscle program for this boy that will at least give him the approximation of human strength? Furthermore, the psychological damage they are doing to him without a clear parental figure and going out of their way to make him feel like an outcast, almost like an entertaining and mildly useful pet on their space station... he even has a cat's name: Gardener. Somebody did not put a lot of thought into the logic of the set-up.
Another central plot failure: it is far more likely - in fact, inevitable - for Gardener to die from the Gs they are pulling when going to space than for him to die of his condition under treatment on earth, at least in the short run. The race against time aspect of the ending makes no sense when viewed from this angle.
The writing was not so terrible in other places, though. Granted, Gary Oldman’s character is horribly annoying. But Gardener is very well-written and Asa Butterfield plays him to perfection. This young man is so underutilised in movies! I would love to see him more often.
The scene with the Mars bar was pure genius. Very funny. I wonder who had to pay who for using the brand in this. And Asa's face - actually PERFECT reaction for someone who has never tried the sugary explosion that is this candy. It also had some truly beautiful scenes, despite all the mess, like the airplane scene. It was a bit overwhelming to imagine seeing and experiencing all this for the first time through Gardeners eyes.
From the technical side, this was a standard movie. I do want to point out the score by Andrew Lockington, though, which is overall rather beautiful, just wildly inconsistent vying between profoundly moving and epic and third rate cheesy.
A cheesy, but watcheable 3/5


"Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri" - I watched this drama on the flight back from Iceland. Though it is a very solid film, it does toe the edge between heartbreaking and ridiculous, an intimate study of the human psyche almost turning satire. This film is about the characters, how they deal with trauma and uncertainty in their daily lives, their (mostly hidden) emotions and urges. It's less about resolving the crime that drives the plot. This is one of those ones that I would love to see on stage.
Frances McDormand's portrayal of the mother of a murdered child shows a hard woman who hides her sensitive core under layers of steel. Interestingly, from the flashbacks, it seems like the unforgiving shell has not been caused by her recent trauma, though. Like all the characters in the film, she seems slightly mad from the get-go. I was delighted to see Sam Rockwell here as a crazy, violent, prejudiced cop who got a loud wakeup-call, but just when you think he is turning a corner - a bit of an extreme 180, if I'm honest - he veers off into even more shady territory. It seems like he unwittingly took a wrong turn somewhere while walking the right path.
Woody Harrelson as the Sheriff was fantastic, probably the only character that was truly good at heart and showed flawless integrity. He was well aware of what his actions meant and how they affected the ones around him, and he was also the most comprehensive character to me. His motives made perfect sense from start to finish. He seemed like the bright spot in this dark, morally murky environment.
In the end, the film points out how deeply rooted the need for resolution is in the psyche, reaching beyond all reason. People so desperately need things to make sense that they resort to senseless violence, willingly, to make the feeling of impotence in the face of a random universe go away.
It's a very solid film, technically well made and with terrific acting, but just not my kind of story for a movie, so 3/5.

"Lost in London" - On the tail end of 3 Billboards, I watched this experimental comedy drama by Woody Harrelson. It was hilarious, dramatic and – most importantly – full of terrific actors! I find it hard to imagine that this was broadcast live to cinemas, though, as the sound mixing is far too good and the dialogue far too distinguishable. But anyway, good try at a one-shot-movie, and kudos to everyone for staying in character.
3/5 for effort

“Mute” – I totally expected this film about a mute barman looking for his girlfriend to be a rather brainless action flick. But boy, was I wrong! Sadly, I only realised at the end why this film was on my list: it’s by Duncan Jones, the mastermind behind the genius sifi “Moon”. This explains a lot, especially why they open with a couple of bars from the Moon score over a moon-looking logo and then there was Sam Rockwell claiming to be Sam Bell on TV at a trial. My first reaction to that was just WHAT THE FUCKING HELL?!?!? But clearly, this is set in the same universe as “Moon” and shortly after the clone was sent to Earth.
Another reason to put this on the list: fabulous Alexander Skarsgård. I love this guy on a personal level and he was awesome in True Blood, but I think he delivered an even better performance here. Heartfelt, deep, exactly the right amount of emotional. Excellent acting, particularly since he had no dialogue and only his expressive face and body to communicate with. Though I don’t quite know why they needed the bit about his Amish background – that seemed completely superfluous to explain his weirdness or his injury – his character as a sensitive, slightly weird loner made sense. Paul Rudd as the crazy surgeon was very good work as well. His character is clearly a man of principle, and yet ruthless and impulsive. Rudd made it work. He melded all these traits into a comprehensive personality. I also enjoyed watching Justin Theroux as his friend Duck. He was so good that I didn’t even recognise him until the credits rolled, even though he looked kind of familiar. I just love this actor form “the Leftovers” and he does an amazing job here as well, making him likeable despite his sick inclinations. Finally, there was Dominic Monaghan. I did recognise him, even though all the make-up because his facial structure is just so distinctive that they can’t hide it short of using heavy prosthetics. He had a short, but memorable role. All in all, a stellar cast that Duncan Jones managed to recruit and they were all fabulous. No over-the-top acting, fully fleshed out, three-dimensional human, flawed characters (great writing there, too!).
The plot was a bit generic, running along the lines of e.g. “Taken” or any other movie involving a kidnapping and a loved one going bananas over it. Only this one was set in a futuristic Berlin, which I sort of enjoyed since there was lots of German – and for a change, they did not try to teach English-speaking actors to cough up some German-sounding syllables. They used actual German speakers. What a relief for my ears! Visually, this was unnecessarily flashy. The muted tones of “Moon” made more sense. The scenes that didn’t use CGI were immediately obvious and much easier on the eyes. Directing-wise, this was a very solid job, though. The editing was fairly standard, straight-forward and without unnecessary fillers and jumps. The only thing I didn’t get was how Leo figured out what had happened to Naadira. That seemed a bit of a stretch. And the ending. It didn't seem rushed or anything. It just would have needed a bit more thought.
Finally, there was some great music by Clint Mansell again. I’m glad he was part of the team this time around as well.
All in all, I really enjoyed this. It was quite a compelling watch. Finally, one of those ones again where I couldn’t really look away and play games on the side or something. The violence was not NEARLY as bad and graphic as I feared it would be. Instead, we had some touching emotional moments with Leo.
To sum it up, I have no idea why this is doing so badly on IMDB. I thought it was a (weak) 4/5.


“Call me by your name” – somehow, I was in the mood for this coming of age drama about sexual identity and love today, and wow! What an awesome work of cineastic art! I can’t believe how fantastic the actors were, first and foremost their youthful lead, Timothée Chalamet. HOW did they find this one, who speaks 3 languages flawlessly and plays both piano and guitar like a god? And can ACT to bring the house down?! He performs with such confidence and bravery, yet communicates such subtlety and natural vulnerability with a finesse that is just awe-inspiring, providing a flawless portrayal of a sensitive, confused, sometimes moody teenager figuring out his feelings, his body and the world. I have a feeling that this film will remain his defining work, and with good reason. Now I also understand why they had the casting director in the credits in the beginning.
His partner, Armie Hammer, was also stunning. The way he let his emotions peak through the suave façade just so... and then the softness behind his eyes when he let himself feel more. The confusions of these two while they danced around each other was exquisite to watch, neither of them understanding either themselves or the other’s actions, their looks, their words to each other. Amazing work. This movie had so many highlights, and then Oliver goes and breaks Elios heart for Christmas. Mesmerising to watch Chalamet act that phone conversation. They also didn’t skimp on chemistry, meaning the actors looked completely comfortable with each other. Everything grew organically from a sort of indifferent curiosity into a tender, bitter-sweet romance which I couldn’t get enough of.
On top of the terrific cast, they had these endless takes sometimes, particularly with Chalamet, who filled the space effortlessly and without stumbling or slipping even once. Great combo of top quality film making and fantastic actors. Oh my god, and the scene with Elio molesting a peach with his thumb (not the other)? That... I don’t even know how that made me feel.
Script-wise this smacks of either something from the personal history of the writer or the pen of a damn good observer. The development picked up speed in such a subtle way that at first, the film was sort of dragging, but by the end I couldn’t get enough of their electric relationship. I was checking the timer and begging for more time with them, they were so beautiful to watch. (They glossed over the sex scenes a bit but I guess there’s only so far they can ask their (reportedly straight) actors to go, though I do feel that something more explicit would have fit this film perfectly and would not have seemed cheap or like it was only there because they wanted to show some skin.) The characters were all very unique, three-dimensional and likeable in their own ways. I particularly loved the beautiful physical relationship Elio had with his parents and that he was so in touch with his body. That was great. It made me envy the Italian temperament because this is the kind of effortlessly touch-based relationship I wish I had with my family and friends. Elio rarely has to ask for somebody to touch him. Hugs and caresses are casual gestures freely dispensed. This probably makes him bolder to ask for what he wants from Oliver, too.
The technical side was flawless. Old-school methods, natural light, great use of locations. And everything was interspersed with little artistic hints, reminders, metaphors, which made the whole thing from a gripping drama into a true work of art. The editing did its best to let the actors breathe – again, it was mostly Chalamet who got the longest takes -, but was not shy to cut to the chase to avoid unnecessary filler seconds. The runtime seemed daunting in the beginning, but was over all too quickly in the end.
Finally, Sufjan Stevens contributed hugely to the soundtrack! Wow, I recognised the voice, but I thought they would use period music, i.e. Simon and Garfunkle, so I couldn’t place it.
Beautiful, beautiful work.
A very easy 4/5.
Actually, looking back, I gave "Mute" 4/5. So this should, by rights, be a 5/5.
Edit: definitely a 5/5. I can't get this film out of my head.

“Alpha” – To be honest, I did not expect much from this prehistoric adventure flic, but I did have some idea of what this should look like. Sadly, it fell below the mark a bit. It was all due to a half-assed script and terrible directing, which is a shame since I really liked the concept. It picked a bit of an unconventional origin story between humans and wolfs, but that’s where the good ideas ended. The entire dramatisation was painfully lacking in realism. And I don’t mean the broader strokes of the story. They should have hired consultants on survival and anthropology because neither Kodi nor the director nor anyone else who has anything to say on this movie has any idea or concept about how to (not) make fire, how to (not) select a sleeping spot or (not) walk in snow storms. They didn’t even seem to know what winter cold or the heat of a fire actually feel like and there was clearly no real cold on set. Every child who has tried their hand at fire-making knows it does not work by rubbing a stick between your hands. An idiot can see that open ground is not a sleeping spot. A tiny fire will not keep you warm, particularly not if you’re out in the open and 2 feet or more away. If you have a hood, use it, especially when walking into a blizzard. There were so many things here, from the broken foot to the wet clothing, that did not work with the story due to the way they were handled. I was just so annoyed. This could have been such a great adventure film if they had only tried, but the story telling devices were used repeatedly, losing any effect, and the script was just plain bad.
The story also took ages to get started. It was told in completely the wrong order, starting with a dramatic scene that you can’t feel because you don’t care about the characters yet. In fact, you care more about the poor buffaloes. Then they rewind and spend ages of screen time on one-dimensional, flat and inconsistent characters that are very hard to get behind on more than a superficial level. They waste even more time on flashes of scenes we already know, making the audience feel like the makers think you’re stupid and won’t remember what happened just 15 minutes previously. Also, I was waiting for the main story to start and it felt like ages passed - about half of the film – before we got to the heart of the matter. The runtime was not long, but it sure felt like it, even though I mercifully did not get bored, exactly.
The dialogue, which was exclusively spoken in a made-up language with subtitles, was wooden in delivery from most actors. Also, it seemed completely random. There was no pattern discernible that made me think they had a stable vocabulary or grammatical structure. Really long-winded statements turned into really short subtitles and long subtitles were spoken in about two syllables. No consistency at all.
The acting is nothing to write home about. I was excited and curious to see what Kodi Smit-McPhee would deliver. I remember him from The Road, where he was great. Here, he unfortunately had no material to work with at all, and so turned in an utterly forgettable performance in a film that did not trust him to carry it. You could really tell they just didn't believe in him. His dad was well-played, though, if a bit unstable.
As for the technical side, for a movie so heavily reliant on CGI, the animations and graphics were terrible. Game-like and tacky. They did have a wolf dog (not even a real wolf, from the looks of it; paws were much too small and body language too dog-like) on set named “Chuck” in the credits, which was a horrible casting choice since his face was clearly that of a male individual. He did perform well, though, but they must have had a tight schedule to use CGI for a lot of close-ups that they could easily have gotten off the animal with a little patience. Overall, they should really have used more real animals, e.g. birds.
Some of the shooting locations were actually outdoors. I recognised Iceland, for example. But they were heavily marred by CGI and weird colour pallets. A lot of the work was clearly done in a studio as well. You could tell by the horrendous lighting job. This was also riddled with puzzling editing choices that led to some staggering non-sequiturs, like the aerial shots in the middle. This was aiming for epic and philosophical, but only seemed directionless and half-assed. Another sign of the mind-boggling lack of creativity were the names of the characters: letters of the Greek alphabet. Clearly, nobody had any passion for this project. At least they had good (if inconsistent) music.
Finally, they credited Morgan Freeman as narrator, even though he literally had three lines at the very end and they were some of the worst writing ever. Cheesy and totally meaningless. Also, the only spoken English in the film. Why??? Another creative choice that made no sense and seemed like nobody had the reigns in hand on this one.
Haha, what a rant! I'm just frustrated that they took this beautiful concept and messed it up so completely. Funnily, despite the above, it still turned out to be a watchable, but unimpressing 3/5
PS: I feel a bit bad that I wrote more about this average film than about the brilliant "Call me by your name" (see above).

I also binged The OA on Netflix instead of going out and socialising (warning: major spoilers ahead). One thing I have to admit is that they have a terrific cast in this. Particularly OA, Steve and Hap shine brightly with their multi-layered performances. Brit Marling was ethereal and mysterious and very credible as either an angel or a traumatised victim. Patrick Gibson perfectly balanced a rage-controlled bully with impulse-control issues and a troubled, sensitive teenager in such a way that made you really feel for him. Jason Isaacs - exactly like in "Discovery - is just a master of deceptively friendly and charismatic characters. You just want to love Hap, but he is a monster. The dichotomy - like with Steve - is very intriguing.

The story-telling format works incredibly well, too. Sadly, they blew up all their careful work with the final episode. Her parents, who were just very annoying side characters, suddenly moved into focus, and I was so frustrated and pissed off with them. A major plot hole that spoiled my enjoyment, was also the prevailing question about Steve’s fate: how come he just went back to school after his parents discovered him with the OA? I wonder how that conversation went: “How are you here?” “Oh, after you had me kidnapped, my teacher followed me and bribed the kidnappers with 50.000 dollars, so I was let go and now I’m back.” “Fair enough. We’ll just resume life.”???

The ending frustrated me as well. It turned out to be just a regular Natascha Kampusch kidnapping story with the protagonist shot dead at the end because the contemporary dance troupe she was teaching didn't act fast enough in distracting the shooter? No, the ending really took an extraordinary story to a disappointingly grounded level.

Ok, I’m trying to post more updates Since I had my working hours changed, my whole life has gotten so much better here in London. I’ve taken up archery, which I train for twice a week for 2 hours, where I have a fantastic coach and am progressing fast. I’ve also been able to attend some more social activities and now participate semi-regularly in an open mic night at a local pub. Funnily, that is a rather sobering experience since every musician around here is just so, so good. I feel a bit inadequate despite the compliments I receive. On this note (haha, pun), I’ve finally taken the time to attend an amazing songwriting and vocal workshop at one of the record labels in north London. It was an eye-opening, galvanising experience. Apparently I should go and record my songs right this instant (according to the producers up there). There might be enough for an album. I’ll try to work on that as well, for my own pleasure.

Also, I’m having a streak at the theatre again. I watched “The Lieutenant of Inishmore” yesterday, featuring Aidan Turner. I got a front row seat, to boot (the view! Yum!) and an autograph. Maybe more importantly: I made a friend (a German girl who was in the theatre with me) and we spent all day dashing from one stage door to the next. As the highlight of the evening, I got a picture and a one-armed hug from Sebastian Roché (Baltazar on Supernatural), which was a magical experience because I did not expect that would be in the cards that day at all. I’m going to see the play he’s in tomorrow night... maybe go back for another picture and an autograph, this time.

Ok, on to the movie part. Not that many have accumulated during the last two months, but here we go:

 “Herkules” – This Disney classic came up on my Netflix suggestions and I’ve never seen it, so I thought I’d give it a go. What a waste of time. They made the first mistake in the first minute: there are nine muses, not five. And then they had these horrendous musical numbers. I already hated it before 3 minutes had passed. Gah, and the obnoxious hero-worship franchise shit. Also, there were some gruesome scenes and lots of grown-up jokes. The story was predictable and not engaging at all. The only fun character was Hades, perfectly voiced by James Woods.
All in all, not a recommendation, especially if you know the first thing about Greek myths, and the music was the worst I’ve ever heard in a Disney movie.
1/5

„On Chesil Beach“ – As I missed all the movies I wanted to see during the first half of this year, for various reasons, I wanted to go to the cinema, and, while looking at what was on, I found this little British drama about a young, recently married couple. I’m glad I didn’t pay money for this as it was not the film I would have knowingly picked for a cinema visit. The story was sort of pointless and meandering, very much like Lalaland, and the time jumping didn’t make it any more exciting. I spent the first half trying to figure out if there was any point to this or any story arc, but discovered none. Oh well. At least the cinematography was positively gorgeous so it was nice to watch the scenery. Apart from that, I though the characters were just stupid, immature and married far too soon (ok, that was kind of the point).
The acting, however... Saoirse Ronana is an utter disappointment. While her body language is quite good and her features lend themselves to natural soft lighting, her line delivery was just terribly stilted and unnatural. Also, they should have gone through the trouble of giving her violin lessons. She didn’t look like she knew what she was doing at all. At least she had decent chemistry with Billy Howle, who was a much better actor, giving a solid performance.
2/5

“50 Shades Freed” - I missed this in the cinema due to illness and I confess I was counting the days until this came out. So, I went and got it immediately... and it’s been nothing but trouble from there.
First, the DVD didn’t play without hitching. It’s such cheap quality that the movie is interrupted every couple of minutes. Luckily, they gave me a code for a digital copy BUT that means installing new, probably invasive software. However, 8 minutes into the film I grew too frustrated with the hiccups so I installed it. Had to wait for the download, too. Gah!
On to the movie (SPOILERS): this came off to a rocky start. The segue into the story was too immediate. I’ve forgotten most of movie 2 – most of all where they stood emotionally at the end – and the intro with the wedding and the honeymoon montage was too abrupt. As a consequence, it didn’t have any emotional clout at all.
Then the super-creepy wedding vows: his were ok, I guess, but hers? OMG, we’re back to suppression and inequality in this relationship. Sigh. Then he is super-bossy on the honeymoon. I thought I had seen some character development before?! Also, where I had come to admire the Steel they put in Ana’s character in the first movie, they completely forgot about that here, particularly during the first 10 minutes. She does not look happy at all for her new husband to avoid her reasonable questions and doesn’t seem into handcuffs one bit (besides, I read somewhere that this type of police handcuffs can actually damage your nerves permanently, so what the hell?) Why would she let him push her around like that again? She’s clearly not into this. They seem like two strangers that got married, minus the lovey-dovey stuff from the beginning. When the question about kids came up I thought “SEROUSLY?!?! This is not something you discussed BEFORE you decided to promise each other the rest of your lives?” Also, why does Christian keep falling back into his old ways and much more importantly: why does Ana let him!??! Back to square one. *sigh*
Ok, and no points to Ana for actually doing what the baddie says. That was so dumb and stupid and I really expected better from her. Then again... she panicked, so it’s somewhat excusable. What’s not excusable is the way the people at the bank treat her. I mean, she is behaving really suspiciously and they have to know that there’s a ransom situation going on. Why is no one helping her? Here, it's actually good that Christian is so controlling and safety-obsessed. Otherwise, this would have ended badly for her.
Ok, enough about the story for now. On to the acting: At the start, we had the same kind of wooden, lifeless acting that we had in movie 2. I think this is because the film were shot in parallel. They got their shit together eventually, though. Even the story picked up after the patchy outset.
Technically, this was not a master-piece but clearly a run-of-the-mill blockbuster production with little finesse and consideration. The lighting was really lazy here. Looked like a beginners' job. The sets and costumes were well-designed, but had a perfunctory feel. I loved the soundtrack, though (again). (Ok, and now I'm rambling directionless.)
Bottom line: This had some serious starting troubles, but then it actually came of rather nicely. The red thread took a while to coalesce, but then it even developed a moderate kind of tension. However, even though they worked through their issues in the end, the characters seemed immature and terribly stupid at times in a childish sort of way... all in all, not a horrible movie, though.
3/5
PS: seems like I'm back to not being able to watch romance. Seeing this was torture on a personal-emotional level for me. I think I'm arriving at the point where I would do almost anything to have a husband and kids and seeing something on screen that feels so utterly unattainable to me just guts me.

"Nymphomaniac I + II" and "Shortbus" - Did a speed-rewatch of these three for no reason this afternoon and was really surprised to find "Nymphomaniac" very deep and artful. It's like a play. And "Shortbus" was still a meaty (no pun intended) drama about the search for love. Where the former two-parter is Arthouse cinema with lots of serious psychology, the latter is quite entertaining in its own right. And both definitely feel different now that I've had some experiences of my own.

“Borg / McEnroe” – Wow! I was really impressed with this tennis drama. I’m not a fan of tennis at all. In fact, I find it deathly boring, and living a short walk away from the Wimbledon arena has not made me a fan either. (Perfect timing to watch this, btw: the games are on right now!!) However, the stellar casting, snappy and pragmatic writing as well as no-frills editing and exquisite score made this a top-shelf production.
The script managed to perfectly translate this real-life thriller for the big screen. On the surface, I can imagine that watching this clash of the titans must have been nerve-wracking for tennis fans. On top of that, the film beautifully added the personal struggles and backgrounds of Borg and McEnroe, which would have been invisible to the audience back then, but added the necessary emotional component to the film to elicited sympathy for the characters and investment in their struggle. I got the feeling, that, at their hearts, both men are actually quite similar (which is confirmed by their real-life friendship), both struggling with their emotions of anger and frustration while dealing with the horrible pressure of expectations from their families as well as themselves. It seem to me that, in this case, their match was very much an internal fight for each individual, a painful journey through the self that both of them won, in the end, though only one of them got to hold the trophy.
Intentional or not, Sverrir Gudnason as Borg looked like Jesus – and the gloomy-doomy vibe surrounding him added to that. Like Borg was slowly working his way up to his execution. Soulful and brooding, his OCD-tendencies gnawing at him, he was riveting to watch. Exquisite performance. Shia LaBeouf absolutely owned his role as McEnroe. He was stellar. His performance as volcanic young hot-head with a wounded heart, overcompensating for the pressure his parents put on him from early childhood was delivered with just as much conviction as anything he does. This guy may be crazy, but he knows how to pick his roles and he excels if he decides to apply himself.
I also loved Stellan Skarsgård as the fatherly mentor. Indeed, at first I thought he WAS Borg’s father – yet another distinction between the characters: Borg is surrounded and supported by family and friends, while McEnroe has to go it alone...
The end with seeing both adversaries embrace was better than seeing the win after their nail-biting fight. Heart-warming. It looked like the beginning of a friendship forged through fire and it’s awe-inspiring and very satisfying to see both of them grow as people and as sportsmen through their encounter.
The visual side of the production was very straight-forward. I loved the no-frills 80ies look. Very consistent set and costume design. Also, beautiful photography with fantastic lighting in the close-ups and atmospheric composition in the wider-angle shots. The editing was unconventional in places, sticking two or more takes together, but it was barely noticeable with the steady-cam approach. Everything was perfectly underscored by touching music from newcomers Jonas Struck & Vladislav Delay (never heard of either of them).
All in all, a gripping lesson in sports history.
An easy 4/5.... or even 5/5?

PS: forgot to say: I LOVED the copious amounts of Swedish dialogue!! Gave me a chance to practice listening and I did hear a lot more than what the subtitles said. It still takes ages for the words to trickle through the decoder in my brain, though. A good 2-3 seconds per sentence. At least.

"Pacific Rim: Uprising" - I was in the mood for some mindless action. This fit the bill perfectly. The first movie had already been surprisingly ok. This one did not disappoint either if expectations are reasonable. The plot was decent, full of twists that were not too surprising, but overall played nicely with turning movie plot clichés on their head. The episodic feeling can be forgiven. At least it didn't seem like they had a bunch of idiots in a room around a writer's desk saying "So, what if THAT happened next?" like they clearly did with other movies (e.g. Nu Star Trek 3). Or maybe they were just more skilled at making the ideas fit together.
Anyway, I liked the characters. I give all the credit to John Boyega for not making his mouthy character seem like an arrogant, annoying half-wit. He was actually pretty funny and likeable in a very natural, organic sort of way. There were no deep emotional connection in this movie that I could feel, but the way the characters interacted seemed more than superficial. I liked that they did not dwell on pointless rivalries and grudges, but set some priorities.
Visually, this was about what you'd expect. Full of flashy CGI up to the point where it made me wonder if even the costumes were real in any of the shots. Must be tricky to play, but all actors did a great job at running from imaginary monsters. Those monsters themselves were actually pretty damn scary. Like Godzilla but way worse. Might have some visit in my dreams...
Anyway, an entertainingly average 3/5

“Wonder Woman” – This was a surprisingly well-done superheroin flick with astonishing emotional clout. I expected it to be shallow and perfunctory, like most Marvel movies are, but I’m learning that DC has the better heroes with more depth and true drama. Though this movie could have used a bit more feminism, it was still good to see a truly strong female heroin. Though Diana is naïve in many ways, she has strong principles to guide her. I also underestimated Gal Gadot. Though lacking the sophistication of a true master of the craft, she delivered an unembellished, straight performance, moving well and bringing the necessary screen-presence. Also, her smile is incredible, and her expressive eyes are essential to filling her character with life.
I also loved Chris Pine in this. He effortlessly danced along the fine edge between cocky and arrogant, presenting a surprisingly three-dimensional character. To be honest, I can’t remember him in a single film where he was not brilliant, and this role, though slightly type-cast, certainly played to his strengths. The scene where he was trying to get on the good side of the mad scientist woman was particularly breath-taking... a bit too perfect, because he was Chris-Pine-seducing-the-madwoman and not Steve-seducing-the-madwoman.
The supporting cast was also well-picked. I particularly enjoyed that the chose an old hand for Ares: David Thewlis, though maybe a bit under-utilised, was certainly an interesting pick.
The plot itself was a bit generic and had several holes. I mean, where was that island of the Amazons that they got to London in a few hours? And when Diana was patting Steve’s face on the beach, I was thinking „god, I hope they told her about men and women“... but how would she know from reading a few archaic text books? Anyway, not in the mood to discuss the plot any further, apart from the old Nazis-are-behind-it trope. Seems like they can never think of anything else. And who is the Kaiser supposed to be?
The technical execution showed good use of budget: the effects were decent and particularly the fight scenes had choreographies that flowed really well. I applaud them for their copious use of horses, too. However, the greenscreen work was sub-par. This also had a gorgeous score by Rupert Gregson Williams, who seems to develop into a composer who’s just as good as his brother.
So, good entertainment. An easy 3/5.

“A quiet place” – Finally watched this horror thriller about how everyone has to be quiet in order not to be eaten by those creatures that hunt by sound. My overall reaction when the credits began to role was “wow”. Despite all of its annoying flaws, this is still a nail-biting and somewhat original film with great acting and thought-through design. John Krasinski, Emily Blunt and the kids were fantastic. I’ve not seen anything with Krasinski before, but I know that a lot of people did not think he could pull this off – but he did, giving an intense performance as a loving and devoted father. Emily Blunt displayed her considerable acting chops as well as a tortured, haunted mother with a spine of steel. The kids were completely believable too. Awesome job all around!
Now on to the script and the nitpicking: first off, the concept was great. It didn’t feel unique, but it was certainly presented in an engaging way. It did not even occur to me until after the credits that we never learn where the creatures come from. That’s not important. However, I was niggled by several flaws in the concept (SPOILERS): the creatures seemed fairly killable with guns. One good shot and they are dead. So how did they manage to kill off what seems most of the planet’s population if there are so few of them???? It seems super-duper easy to set traps for them, attracting them with noise and then shooting them from a somewhat safe position. I see absolutely no reason why they would be a threat for long. Also, it annoyed me to no end that these people did not have a sound-proof panic room. That would have been the first thing I’d construct instead of strings of lights in the garden and beacons on the roof. They need a place where they can just close the door and live a relatively normal-sounding life, having conversations, laughing,... Instead they live in a wooden house with the f***ing doors and windows open all the time! That’s just inviting in the creatures. And yeah, they can rend steel, but there is no reason why you can’t make your sound-proof panic room a concrete basement bunker at the same time. I don’t see these things opening doors or anything (look at the car scene!). Smaller details: It’s stupid of these people to walk bare foot. It’s NOT quieter than wearing e.g. socks as anyone would know who’s ever walked bare-foot (smack-smack-smack) and if they hurt themselves, they might shout out – as did in fact happen, more or less. Also, you cannot run as fast on bare feet due to stepping on stones, twigs, pointy stuff etc. that impedes your progress. The crying baby made me role my eyes. This is a life-or-death situation. At the slightest sound, the baby's face should be pushed into a pillow or its nose and mouth pinched shut. It will lose consciousness, but that would shut it up and would be preferable to dying. Also, they stole the design for the creature from Stranger Things. Flappable faces seem to be just the thing right now. As for the sounds that creatures and people alike can or can’t hear: the panting / heavy breathing, slapping of feet in the sand or the gushing of water in your barn are definitely sounds you would hear! WTF?
That leads me neatly to the technical side: the sound design was quite nice, as a whole. The quiet, interspersed with some great atmospheric music by Marco Beltrami, the missing dialogue – though whispering like mom does on occasion would have been perfectly acceptable, considering all the other noises they constantly make – it all added to the picture. It was also interesting to see them come up with ideas to mute everyday noises, but again: a sound-proof quiet room would be just the thing so the kids can play in peace etc. (a friend of mine has a sound-proof basement, inherited from the previous owner of the house who was a professional musician. It’s not difficult to construct!) The visuals were good: I liked the colour pallet, the clear quality of the picture and especially the lighting. The creatures, however, looked a bit too pink around the gills. (Kudos again to the actors, btw, for playing so well with their virtual counterparts! Very convincing!)
Ok, so all in all, a gripping thriller that impresses by getting by without lazy noise-shockers and jump-scares. There is some hefty emotional impact, to boot, with real drama and high stakes. Overall a job well done.
Only 4/5 because of all the logic holes, though.

“Annihilation” – I hated this sifi movie about a mutation-causing meteorite. The story telling mode was unsuitable for this plot, giving away most of the ending. That made me care even less about the story. The whole thing dragged endlessly and what little momentum they had was killed by the flash-forwards. Combine that with needless, gory violence, annoying, illogical characters and a story that makes no sense and you get this mess of a movie. The cherry on top was the utterly unfitting score with mournful country guitars. Natalie Portman must be seriously in need of money to have signed up for this.
1/5

In other words, I got a bunch of new music. What I’m listening to right now is the album "Post Traumatic" by Mike Shinoda, where he processes his grief for his friend and fellow Linkin Park band member Chester Bennington, who tragically killed himself last year. I was never a massive Linkin Park fan – though they did have some great music! -  but the level of personal tragedy you can hear in this impressive album is heart-breaking. If you only listen to one song, listen to "Over Again". Makes my cry every time. One of the bravest, most personal and intimate songs ever written.

(Couldn't post the entry as a whole due to it being over 60kb?!?!)

“20th century women” – This arthouse-y coming-of-age story was quite different from what I expected. It followed a 15-year-old boy through life surrounded by 3 very different women. Philosophical and sensitive, it touched on a range of topics from feminism to discovering who you are. It featured top-notch acting, especially by Annette Bening and Lucas Jade Zumann, the latter delivering an absolute break-out performance with stunning maturity and vulnerability. It was a joy to watch these two work opposite each other, complementing each other’s performances and playing off each other absolutely beautifully. The rest of the cast was great, too. Well done everyone!
On top of this, the visuals were gorgeous in their unembellished simplicity and realism. The score was amazingly atmospheric. All in all, it was well-made experience. The only problem I had was the lack of resolution and the meandering story with an unclear line.
3/5

“Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them” – This was a very lengthy prequel to the Harry Potter series... and it didn’t make much sense. After about 15 minutes I was beginning to lose interest in this self-indulgent farce. At another point I felt like we must be getting close to the end. I looked at the clock and it was still 45 minutes to go! If I didn’t know that JKR wrote this, I would suspect amateurism. While the script was not nearly as bad as “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” (which is an insult; don’t get me started!), it was rather meandering and didn’t feel quite right. Also, there were several sequences that were downright confusing and I didn’t understand the concept of the monster made from suppressed magic at all. The performances were adequate, but Eddie Redmayne was wasted on this. And I have to say I can totally see why people vehemently oppose casting Jonny Depp as Grindelwald. I really do wonder who thought that was a good idea.
On the technical side: atrocious hair and make-up for Eddie Redmayne (he looked positively orange), and sub-par VFX throughout, starting with the boat in the beginning and ending with the golden bird-thing (even cuddling with a prosthetic as seen in B-roller footage could not save this botched sequence).
The score was good, though. Another classic James Newton Howard work.
All in all, from a movie of that title I would have expected an adventure film about finding magical creatures in the wild. I found it utterly unbelievable that the magical world would have had practically no knowledge of magical creatures before Newt came along. Hogwash, as one of the American witches said.
3/5

“The secret of NIMH” – I’ve only ever seen this classic in parts when I was a kid, never as a whole. I guess I’m a little too old for it now, though, as the story did not satisfy me at all. There should have been a clear direction: either magic or mechanics. Not both of them, randomly inter-mixed. This led to stupid deus-ex-machina moments and robbed the film of focus and clarity. The story failed to properly develop, too, with existential problems intersecting with a magical coming-of-age story, animal rights critique and political intrigues in a way that did not seem to mix. One good thing: there is a strong female lead, even though she is constantly directed by males.
On the technical side, though, this was lovely. The pace of children’s films used to be so much more sedate. Beautiful, uncomplicated pictures, too. The difference is immediately evident. Nowadays, kids’ films are just so hectic and overstuffed with details. They are an assault on the young brain. This, however, is quite easy to follow and leaves enough space to take a breath in between.
Plus, the music was by Jerry Goldsmith.
Anyway, going on my “been there, done that” list. No re-watch.
PS: just saw on IMDB that Will Wheaton had a role here!

“A monster calls” – This drama about a boy in the process of losing his mother to cancer started out with incredible, moving music and a gorgeously designed intro. Next observation: Spanish directors do seem to have a special eye for lighting. But I’m getting ahead of myself. From the top:
The plot of this movie is a very difficult and deeply personal story. The powerful – and painful – thing is that everybody is going to be in this situation, or a situation like this at some point in their life. That’s why I think this film is sure to resonate with everyone who watches it. Very cleverly done. The writing was very realistic with good characters and an impeccably written boy in the middle of it. Also, this turned into something a bit like Inception at times in so far that there were multiple layers of reality and dreams... All in all, very engaging on more than one level.
Connor was incredibly well played by Lewis MacDougall. The performance was flawless, the emotions tangible and convincing. I was particularly impressed by such a young actor being able to play so well with CGI-characters and portray very difficult and raw emotions. You really emphasise with him and his plight, and his presence is so strong that a lot of big scenes don’t even need a score to force the emotions out of you. The writing does the rest to illustrate the isolation, frustration and helplessness he feels, so I guess this is a great example of writers and actors working in synergy. Of course, you can’t fault anybody elses’ performance, either. The choice of Liam Neeson as the Monster worked out fabulously, which was a bit surprising.
On to the visuals: like I said, lighting was great and good choice of colour palette. I also liked the animated tales (reminded me of Harry Potter). The CGI was not top-notch, but what it needed to be to bring the story across. Huge credit should go to the absolutely amazing music by Fernando Velázquez. It was just the kind of epic that I like, but expertly aimed for the backseat when not needed. Sweeping and emotional, it provides a story of its own. (In fact, I found it immediately on Spotify and was listening to it as I wrote this review.)
Other technical aspects: Make-up was not great. In fact, there were some scenes where it was downright terrible (e.g. making cheeks look dirt-stained instead of hollow).
Bottom line: a very moving tale. Warning: this will make you bawl your eyes out.
4/5
PS: I would love to see Lewis MacDougall on a stage.

“A Ghost Story” – This Arthouse drama about a guy dying in a car accident didn’t quite work for me. -Terrence Mallic-y vibes with big themes and little content. Can something be both a spiral and a circle? This definitely felt like one. The one obvious flaw that this script had was that the initial reason why the ghost stuck around was not even there when it all began. Other than that, the nice, long takes portrayed the endless waiting very well. The 3:4 format instantly produced an arthousy feeling. Despite it all, this was strangely mesmerising, even though nothing’s happening. How many takes of the pie-eating-scene did Roony Mara have to endure?
2/5

“Ant Man” – This Marvel flick about a shrinking hero with a pack of warrior ants is deathly boring and predictable. Though I liked the idea of the ant-whisperer, the rest was snore-inducing. I had enough after less than an hour. Overall, this thing tried way too hard to be funny. They got a rip-off Ben Afleck in the lead surrounded by an unspectacular supporting cast who, despite being good actors, can’t save the script. The exception was the little girl, who was brilliant. I’m also quite sure ants don’t make tamagotchi-noises.
Forgettable. 2/5
PS: not sure they are aware that "olfactory" means related to smell.

„Passengers“ – I was fully prepared to be disappointed by a totally predictable and shallow space flick, but this was actually not half bad. Sure, it still had predictable turns, but overall, it was executed in an engaging way. I really like Chris Pratt, though I think he was too goofy for this role. Jennifer Lawrence is not someone I’m a fan of, but she’s an ok actress, especially in something as low-risk as this. Michael Sheen was an absolute joy as always and the appearance of Lawrence Fishburn was nice, though he’s aged A LOT.
Visually, the production design was neat, but too roomy and low-key. To build the ship like this seems like a totally inefficient design by a company who’s supposed to be profit-orientated. (Coming to think of it, it’s surprising the ship goes anywhere at all, because wouldn’t it be the ultimate business model to cash in on a service that only people 200 years from now can check was delivered? They could just kill all these people, shoot them into space and crash them into an asteroid and no one would be the wiser.) Anyway, who would want to eat in a mess hall like that with low ceilings, cold light and no decorations?? Good job on most of the CGI, though, which I’m assuming was half the movie.
To be frank, I didn’t quite get the ending. Where did the chickens come from? Why were there no descendants? Where did the tree put its roots and how did it grow so big in under 100 years?? Those roots seem a lot more dangerous than the meteorites.
Finally, lovely score by Thomas Newman.
All in all, good work. I condensed it a bit by playing it at 1.1 speed (saves 15 minutes across the stretch, which makes it just the right length).
A very solid 3/5
Definitely better than a lot of stuff I've recently seen. No idea why this was slammed so much.

“The Jungle Book” – life-action re-make of the totally unnecessary kind. This was making points that had no point and, apart from the talking anthropomorphised animals, required a level of suspension of disbelief that was hard to maintain. True, the script was somewhat engaging - I can’t say the film was boring. However, it neglected to elaborate on most plot points and stayed completely superficial. The characters were one-dimensional and the forced integration of the classic songs was just cringe-worthy (particularly the ape song. That’s just plain racist in this day and age and should have been scraped, not just re-worded). The acting was ok, I guess. I feel sorry for the boy (Neel Sethi) who had to act greenscreen with no partners 99% of the time. I think he did a great job at that, particularly for a first major movie role, and he would have deserved a more prominent credit instead of being dwarfed by his famous voice-acting companions (e.g. Scarlett Johanson, Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley – the only one half-way good - and Idris Elba)
As for the visuals, I know animals are expensive and dangerous to work with, but they could have put in at least a few in some wide-angle shots. The animations were, sadly, horrendously sub-standard, moving badly, with unrealistic build and texture. I’m guessing this did not have the budget it needed.
The score was good, though.
Anyway, as a lover of the TV-series when I was a kid and the original film, I don’t see the purpose of this re-make. If you want a kids’ film, go for the old stuff. If they wanted to make an adult adaptation, they should have taken more care with some of the themes in here (they did touch on various things that had potential).
Actually, the very best part of the film are the credits with the book. These are truly well-made and hilarious to watch. If I would rate on credits alone, this would get a 5/5, but taking into account the rest: 2/5

"The Pass" - Engaging drama about a closeted gay football player. Watching this, I immediately thought it would make a fantastic play - and by now I know that whenever a film like that comes along, it's usually because it IS a play adapted for the screen, as this one turned out to be. I would have LOVED to see this at the theatre, especially since the brilliant Russell Tovey had the main part both here and on stage (and I know how good he is on stage, so what a boon that would have been!). Anyway, though it was a drama about a young man struggling with his identity, and how that struggle inadvertently destroys him, it was also a dark, almost psycho-thriller like piece in places. The characters were interesting (apart from the naive bellboy): Jase on the one hand, the typical loud picture of manly confidence hiding deep insecurities, and on the other Ade, much more emotionally mature, settled and ready to commit, but also still quietly searching. I'm not sure I'm happy about the ending, but it's one of those haunting films that makes you think.
Performances were stellar on all sides, making the emotional turmoil obvious and enabling the viewer to follow without throwing it all in your face. Russell Tovey and Arinze Kene had a natural chemistry that is rare between "gay" on-screen couples and were playing off each other beautifully. The way this was shot and edited gave the actors room to work and time to develop the scenes. The three-act-format probably made for a manageable production budget, too, with no need to fork out the big bucks on sets or wardrobe.
I loved the music, which was as much part of the scene as it was of the soundtrack. Yet the intense emotional scenes worked in utter silence except for the dialogue. They had James Vincent McMorrow for the end title, whom I adore.
All around an intense and captivating watch.
an easy 3/5

„Lady Macbeth“ – This drama about a Victorian lady trapped in an unhappy marriage is quite cleverly made. At first, you start out in the default position of feeling sorry for the main character, a young girl married off to some dude who has no interest in her, moving into a lonely house on the moor full of a father in law who despises her and servants who subversively torture her (I wonder why. It would have been so easy to make them fast allies if she just extended one finger towards them.). But her apparent indifference already makes alarm bells ring in the distance. Her actions go against her best interests, but it does not seem because she’s rebelling. It’s more that she wants to pinch herself to see when it will start to hurt. At first, you could put it down to her youth and naivety, but things spiral in tighter and tighter circles, darkness looming on the horizon, and her motives shift from what seemed the obvious ones to far more sinister ones, until, in the end, you don’t really get her motives at all as she seems to deliberately dig herself a hole too deep and dark to crawl out of. The only explanation is that you misjudged her character completely from the very beginning, making you look back and re-think all her actions. The shift is especially interesting as they give her a partner to play off of who seems very clearly morally rotten and it’s fascinating to watch these two slide in opposite directions as more and more of their character is revealed.
Needless to say, this was brilliantly acted. However, for a period drama set in Scotland, I thought there were WAAAY to many non-Scottish characters.
Wardrobe and sets were nicely done. Lighting was beautiful. I don’t remember much of a score to speak off, though.
Anyway, a haunting 3/5
Looking back, I'm not sure if this would not rather qualify as a psychothriller... but no. Psycho-drama, maybe.

„The Shack“ – predictably, this religious drama with the title of a horror movie about a father dealing with the violent death of his daughter was a very effective tear-jerker. However, the religious content largely disagreed with me, inducing frequent eye-roles. I don’t get how Sam Worthington got wrapped up in this project. His talent should afford him more exciting roles. The entire supernatural side of things could have been handled with more finesse.
The visual side of things was, in a word, pretty. It was clearly a conscious choice to have everything look pretty much like “What dreams may come”, as the theme of this film was similar. They had some fairly horrendous matte painting and VFX, though.So, yeah. Not really a film I would watch again.
2/5 for emotional clout.

"Monsters University" - since Netflix removed most of the films I wanted to see from my watchlist overnight without warning, I just took something random. This coming-of-age story was not very good. I didn't feel it transported all the right messages. Particularly the bullying aspect was not addressed sufficiently. Instead, there was a bunch of totally obnoxious looser characters, and while I usually enjoy rooting for the underdogs as much as the next person, this was too dumb to accept.
So, yeah. Not happy with this one.
2/5

"What we do in the shadows" - I kind of was expecting this to be a psycho-thriller or relationship drama. It was a mockumentary about a vampire flatshare... and I was definitely not in the mood for it. It might have been funny if I had been in a different mindset tonight. Anyway, the acting was not great. The sets and costumes were a bit too much. At least they tried with the story. Almost didn't finish it. All said, not a recommendation from me.
1/5
PS: Taika Waititi's German accent was weirdly convincing. Also the German dialogue passage. Well done!

“Top Gun” – this classic about a cocky fighter pilot learning his limits did not impress me at all. Apart from horrendous, stilted dialogue where every second sentence contains the name of the character they are talking to, the acting was wooden and flat. Tom Cruise clearly matured with age because these days, he is a terrific actor. I was shocked to see Val Kilmer even more clueless than Cruise. (This also had Anthony Edwards, whom I didn’t even recognise with a full head of hair.) On top of the meh story, Maverick was a terribly unlikeable character. His development arc was forced and fruitless in this amateur script. What a waste. There was so little plot that they needed to put in extraordinary amounts of filler, like that volleyball scene.
The music mixing was horrible and the soundtrack terribly cheesy. Visually, this was able to provide lots of actual fighter plane footage, but the cinematography with the masked pilots who all seemed to have the same voice made it neigh impossible to follow who was who despite the colourful helmets. Not very thought-through. They also wasted their seemingly strong female character on a senseless romance. This should not have happened (and would hopefully not happen in a modern movie). To sum it up: This is a typical case of been there, done that. No idea how this movie got its notoriety.
2/5
PS: This reminded me of two fighter jets I saw "dancing" over the ocean in Kent last summer. The noise was horrendous, but I got some great photos.

“Arrival” – felt in the mood today for this alien-movie-that-turned-out-to-be-a-sifi-thriller about a linguist trying to find a way to talk to the new arrivals. I went into this without too much pre-knowledge and so I got a very pleasant surprise as the whole thing was very refreshing in its unpredictability (I mean, the predictability didn’t go beyond the very broadest strokes).
With good acting and excellent pacing, this turned out riveting and intense from the first minute, nail-biting from start to finish, interspersed with heart-wrenching drama and moments of remembrance/foreshadowing, also engaging my brain quite a bit (this will definitely warrant a second viewing). It’s very hard to classify this film. Sifi? Drama? Thriller? Amy Adams gave a very human performance as a linguist thrust into this extreme situation, experiencing things she doesn’t know how to handle, but still pulling through by virtue of the bedrock of her strong character. Jeremy Renner’s character supported her very well in a surprisingly un-annoying way. The only characters I hated were everyone from the military. I hope that the real military is not full of idiots like these with their shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality.
In terms of plot, this was really quite inventive in the finer details. Some very unique ideas. The only thing that REALLY annoyed me was that stupid bird. It was confusing everything they were doing with the sound of its chirp and the movement and why was it there anyway??? I guess for symbolic value...
Technically, this was also executed well. The animations could have used a bit more computing power as they didn’t look complicated but still obviously fake. Other than that: well done. Also, this had an absolutely gorgeous score by Johann Johannsson. The beginning and end were even done by Max Richter, the man responsible for the Leftovers score. Definitely one to watch.
All in all, an engaging, nail-biting, brainy sifi thriller drama that I am sure will bear a second watching. It felt a little like the Matrix: I’ll only fully get it on the second round.
A very easy 4/5

"Bright" - I felt like watching this Netflix fantasy cop movie featuring orcs, elves and humans in a modern world. It wasn't too bad, aside from the simplistic plot and the on-the-nose delivery. I can see why some people where annoyed. But if you accept these flaws, it's not a bad film. There is character development going on and it even manages to bring in some real drama towards the end. The performances by Will Smith and Co were not memorable, but also not in need of much criticism.
They clearly had a decent budget for this and knew how to use it on the visuals. By now, I also know that Netflix is trying to be the next HBO, so I was prepared for the violence (mostly easy to avoid).
They get major points for the great soundtrack and interesting score.
It feels like this is not the end of the story and for once, I'd be eager to watch a sequel.
3/5

“Batman VS Superman – Dawn of Justice” – They put this on Netflix and since I’ve been unsuccessful so far in watching this comic movie, I did so now. Took me two tries, too, because... well, Netflix. Connection issues. But that was not a loss. This was overlong, long-winded and badly in need of an efficient editor. There was so much rubbish in here, extended shots with no meaning, visions and metaphors with no base. Pretty lame. This film had so much time to tell a story and yet it seemed disjointed. Also all those visions and hallucinations everyone keeps having....*facepalm* Who’s idea was that?! Also, there were some good questions asked in the film. The base material was not bad, but they didn't use it very well. The action was super-boring (they didn’t even try!) and the plot was too simple to be stretched over such a long movie. Also, I never liked Batman, but this movie was totally biased towards Superman (I’m fine with that as I grew up on The adventures of Louis and Clark and would have been in Superman’s corner in any case. I also really liked Man of Steel.). Anyway, Batman made no sense. He was just a bitter, bored boy with a hatred for the world. I think I saw them trying to find a reason for him to hate Superman, but Bruce is a just cold-blooded murdering hypocrite with not a leg to stand on in his moralising. HE is the one murdering people left and right, even if they are evil henchmen.
Still, I couldn’t find much fault with Ben Affleck in the role. Once I saw him in the costume, he sort of fit. His portrayal of the character, even if a bit one-dimensional due to the writing, was not terrible. But Henry Cavill’s performance was soulful and likeable. I was glad to see he had no trouble slipping back into his character, even though he did not get nearly as much material to work with here than in Man of Steel. It’s also ridiculous how buff he and Ben got. Small heads on enormous bodies. Almost comical (haha, pun!). (To that end: I thought it hilarious that Bruce Wayne can’t afford proper work-out equipment. He has to use old tires and rusty chains instead. Lol. But I see why he had to get physically strong to ground his character.)
Jesse Eisenberg also got a lot of shit as Lex Luthor and I agree that his portrayal was more Joker than Lex. A bit manic, very crazy, thoroughly annoying. But he tried to give the bland material another twist and do something not-quite-expected, so points for effort. He was not so out of place that it bothered me. As for Gal Gadot? Have not seen Wonder Woman yet (though friends recommended it, so I will), but if her performance in this is anything to go by, I probably won’t like it. She’s one of the worst, flattest actresses I’ve ever seen. With all their money couldn’t they find somebody who’s got the looks AND the acting chops? Pretty sad.
Visually, this didn’t have much to offer. Too much CGI, all of it sub par. Disappointing. Forgettable fight sequences and a monster so run-off-the-mill that I was of a mind to skip that whole sequence. I did like that they managed to put in some real drama in the end, though. It’s over the top and cliché, but I liked the whole Pieta thing. Then again, this had almost as many endings as LOTR. I wonder how long Lois has been standing by the open grave... some days at least, going by Batman’s mission. I was also sitting there when the credits came thinking “where the hell is my post-credit scene?” Instead I got logos. Then I remembered that this is DC, not Marvel.
Ah, the score: not much to say. I'm shocked that Hans Zimmer wasn’t able to write them something suitably epic for their play at greatness.
So, not the worst movie ever, but yea, not memorable either 2/5
PS: Mrs. Kent is just the most badass person ever.
PPS: Call me shallow, but I totally ship Lois and Clark and I love their romance here.

"Paddington" - Watched this movie about a children's book character, Paddington Bear, coming to London because it has a whopping 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. I have no clue why that is. To be fair, I never liked Paddington very much as a child... but this film certainly didn't make me like him any more. The whole thing was just kind of annoying to watch. The animations were not what I'd expect. I hate when Nicole Kidman plays the villain (I'd rather have her type-cast as crying mother/widow/etc.). The performances were all around forgettable. Though I did laugh once or twice, it was not a ride I'd recommend.
The only plus: some beautiful shots of my current home, London!
2/5

 

„Cargo“ – This zombie apocalypse drama with Martin Freeman was a solid production, though the idea is not new. I guess there are only so many permutations of zombie dramas you can do. But it was well-written and brought to life with good actors. Martin Freeman’s expressive face made it easy to see why the protagonist would do what he does, even if it’s stupid things. I found it curious that they named his daughter “Rosie”, just like in Sherlock. And he does look like John Watson after Mary died. Can’t wait for the mash-ups to appear on youtube. However, overall, the characters are rather simplicity and the only truly interesting person, the Aborigine girl, is not explored enough.
Visually, this was beautifully shot on location. The effects were just toeing the line of gory without being extreme. The score was gorgeous. Well done. Especially for the ending. Still, this could have used a more stringent editor to cut it down to 90 minutes as the film failed to build momentum until the last half hour and could easily have been shortened. The red thread was a bit slack, though that may have been intentional to show the grating hopelessness of the situation...
I just wonder how they survived in the bush for so long without visibly carrying water.
3/5

Also, this rant about how David Yates ruined the Harry Potter movie franchise:

As a director, I hold him responsible for the gaffs of his team.
a) the scripts were mostly rubbish, leaving out important details or twisting story lines into unrecognisable nonsense. I know book-to-movie adaptations never go down without a few ruffled feathers, but these were disasters.

b) the editing. It's horrendous from the moment he took over, partly due to the script, partly due to his signature style or something. Everything is so cut up in pieces that you have no chance to get into the mood of the moment. You get shots from 4 angles of Harry looking shocked or falling down or kissing Cho Chang and before you know what your eyes are seeing, there's another cut to a new angle. It's disorientating and ruins the whole movie. It precludes the actors being able to do their job, ripping apart their performance and not giving them a chance to portray their character. I could go on an on about the utter failure of keeping his editor on a short leash.

c) (for bonus points: the end to the series was completely ruined under his "care". He allowed the pivotal scene of Harry defeating Voldemort in a glorious, gripping battle to be re-written as a boring, nausea-inducing train wreck of a scene that makes no sense at all. If you haven't read the books, do. The finale gives me shivers and palpitations every time. The movie just makes me want to smash the screen.)

Honestly? This is the only media where I can emphatically say: I can't wait for a re-make of this series. I know I stand alone in this, but the first two movies were the only ones that were any good.