Warning: Undefined array key "StartingPoint" in /customers/f/f/0/safaribears.de/httpd.www/content.php on line 107 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/f/f/0/safaribears.de/httpd.www/content.php:107) in /customers/f/f/0/safaribears.de/httpd.www/content.php on line 115 Warning: Undefined variable $WEB_ROOT in /customers/f/f/0/safaribears.de/httpd.www/content.php on line 118 Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /customers/f/f/0/safaribears.de/httpd.www/content.php:107) in /customers/f/f/0/safaribears.de/httpd.www/content.php on line 118 JEH: Movies that I saw in Cinema

My personal vote history at the Internet Movie Database
next films I want to see: -
August 2015
  • Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Last Samurai, Collateral) as the top agent Ethan Hunt
  • Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames as the rest of the IMF team.
  • Sean Harris (Prometheus) as Solomon Lane, the head of the Syndicate, the "Anti IMF"
  • Rebecca Ferguson as Ilsa Faust, the mysterious girl that is on the enemy's side but helps Hunt
Ethan Hunt gets to chase the Syndicate, that we heard about in the last scenes of Ghost Protocol. The evil mastermind behind the Syndicate is after a file hidden in a high security location and he forces Hunt to get it for him.
We have plenty of chase scenes (the best part of the movie to me is the motor cycle chase in Morocco on BMWs), the riddle to get into that location (reminiscing of the first MI installment), the usual cultural thing (Opera or classical concert) that seems to be a must in Hollywood - here a scene in the Opera house in Vienna showing Turandot and too many "ha ha funny" scenes. Simon Pegg that many watchers hated in Ghost Protocol has been at it again, and just the first scene with the Airbus 400M, where nobody seemed to have a clue almost made me leave.
The first half of the movie wasn't very exciting and a bit slow, the second half was better...
I give it 6 out of 10 points.
September 2013
  • Bruce Willis (Die Hard, 6th Sense) as Frank Moses, the retired CIA agent
  • Mary-Louise Parker (Red Dragon) as Sarah Ross, now as a rookie agent - not for the CIA but for the RED team ツ.
  • John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman - Moses' old buddies that help him.
  • Anthony Hopkins as the genius scientist Bailey
Frank Moses and his close crazy companion Marvin get into big trouble, because someone leaks papers on the web that make them know something about a nasty super-secret cold-war project. The US brass wants them dead for knowing, and Russia wants them to share what they know. So they have to go underground and figure all that out by themselves, with plenty of help from the rest of the gang.
His girl Sarah is coming along this time, on her own insistence, because she found the time with Moses getting rather stale since the events of R.E.D.

Surprisingly, since this is a "Part 2 of a Really Good Movie", Hollywood could deliver. It's again real popcorn cinema. There's fun, jokes, tension, action, a few surprises and everything it needs to keep you entertained. Willis and Malkovich are great, play a great game with and for us, Mary-Louise Parker is, I would say, doing a really great job, the plot isn't bad and the timing works. If this would have been a serious action-movie, it would have been terrible, but it's an action comedy, and hey, did I laugh the whole time? Yes!
The first installment got 7 points, this one is a bit better, so
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
December 2012
  • Ian McKellen as Gandalf
  • Martin Freeman as the younger version of Ian Holm playing Bilbo
Unfortunately, I made it to the movies again - to see the first installation of "The Hobbit".
I think I would have left around the middle of the movie, if I would have gone alone. After surviving this abomination, I came out of the movie theatre with a strong feeling of Deja Vu (all over again). I remembered strongly how I felt when I came out of Star Wars Abomination I (The Phantom Kindergarten). Why did I remember that so well? Because I felt as if I had gone to see that thing again, just with Hobbits and dwarves and all the rest.
A lot of people were (and still are) complaining, that LoTR didn't go exactly by the book. It's true, but the deviations are in my opinion only minor and don't bother at all. Some make even sense. But "The Hobbit" is really a very free and very artsy interpretation by someone who must have read the book "The Hobbit" in the "for dummies" version.
Besides that, it really has a strong resemblance to Star Wars Abomination I: Too much kiddie style, there's even Jar-Jar Bings again (this time as his alter ego The Brown Wizard), and Boss Nass is there, too, pretending to be a Goblin king.
If you like the Tolkien books, Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion and The Hobbit, and if you like the LoTR movies, don't go and see The Hobbit Episode I.
I am still too much in shock to give a definite rating, for now I am generous and give 2 points, but that might drop a bit.
I give it 2 out of 10 points.
November 2012
«Skyfall»
  • Daniel Craig as James Bond
  • Judi Dench as M
  • Ralph Fiennes as the bureauocrat who has to kick M into retirement.
A new Bond movie with my favourite Bond impersonator? Sure I had to run and see it! I didn't go to see Casino Royale and really regret it. After seeing it, when it came out on disc, I surely wanted to see the next one on the big screen. I liked CR a lot, and liked QoS even better, in oppositon to a lot of the big Bond fans.
So what is the third one, Skyfall, about? It's about having to find a guy whose agenda is to kill M. Fist Craig has to figure out who he is, and where he can be found. That already hands over a lot of action. When they finally capture the guy, it only serves his purpose - it has been all planned like that from the beginning. Showdown between him and just Bond and M on the other side.
How did I like the movie? It's suberb! The action is plentyful, straight and realistic. Craig is just fantastic, M is brittle as deep frozen steel, the plot is good, and there are plenty of Bond references in there, to make the Bond fans happy - most didn't like the first two Craig movies, it seems.
There's a (THE!) DB5 in it, there's the Bond score in it, you will get to see Miss Moneypenny, there's the sensual Bond scene with a hot girl in it, you'll get to see a Q, handing over gadgets and asking to have them returned in their proper state, it's all there. If you don't care about Bond, but like action movies - this is the movie for you. If you are an avid Bond fan - this is the movie for you. Go and see it.
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
September 2012
  • Kristen Connolly as Dana, one of the 5 teens
  • Fran Kranz as the weed smoking bong carrying Marty, one of the 5
After a really long time I went to the movies again - Cabin in the Woods. I didn't *really* know what it was about, but I have seen several trailers. So I knew that there's something about a lab and they watch the 5 teens and all that. I didn't know why they would do something like that and I didn't know in which direction the movie would go.
So what's the story? 5 teens set out to go to a cabin in the woods, 2 girls, 3 guys. The cabin was recently bought by a cousin of one of them, and they wanted to stay there for awhile and have a good time. Upon leaving we see a guy standing on the roof of their house sending a message (secret service style with button in the ear), saying they are on their way as planned. Huh? Isn't this a horror flick? Well, they arrive at the cabin and find it in a creepy atmosphere and after being there awhile, they start playing truth or dare. Then we get to jump to a laboratory where everything they do or say is shown on large screens. But they are not only watched as we quickly find out. They are manipulated by chemicals, and when the Five are supposed to find the basement of the cabin, they let the trap door jump open. The lab guys keep talking in riddles (to an outsider) about how they have to sacrifice these 5 to satisfy "the old ones" or something like that. When the Five find the basement and it's weird and creepy contents everyone of them starts playing with something. One, Dana, is reading an old book, like a diary. Certainly it's about death, mutilation, and coming back from the grave, and certainly, there are some Latin words, which Marty tells her not to read, but she does anyway. At that moment we see somewhere in the woods a bunch of zombies climbing out of the soil.
Then the usual zombie stuff starts, but all rather quickly. Three of the five get killed rather quickly, and the other two, Dana and Marty, find a way getting into the underground laboratory. To make a short story even shorter, they find cages, each equipped with some monster right out of a horror movie, and they release them, because the security personnel of the laboratory wants to kill them anyway - well they want to kill Marty, because he has to be one of the four needed sacrifices. If Dana, as the supposed 'virgin' dies depends on luck, it's not a must.
After the released monsters chop up everyone and his dog, the two finally get to the lowest level and have to fight it out with 'The Director' of the lab, guess who - Sigourney Weaver. She tells them that they are a sacrifice to save all mankind, because if Marty doesn't die within the next few minutes, the gods that are underground, will come back to the surface, and mankind will cease to exist. Dana, holding a pistol recently acquired, aims at Marty to kill him, but in the end she doesn't. End of film - we see the hand of one of those 'Old Gods', way, WAY larger than the whole Cabin in the woods, breaking through to the surface. We can imagine that this is not just the end of the movie, but for mankind.
The movie had it's really creepy moments, and the scenes with the zombies were getting under my skin, for a second. Usually right when I felt the horror creep under my skin, the movie took a turn and just wasn't a slasher horror movie anymore. They switched to the guys in the underground laboratory, or one of the 5 guys found a hidden camera or something like that. The movie wasn't boring at all, but it didn't suck me completely into its own world. I kept asking myself "where does it lead" or "what's the aim of the movie", things like that. In the end, I was left with questions or better said points of interest, that were not followed or answerd. Like, how did these guys know about those gods, but not the rest of the population? What about all those monsters, fucking real zombies, ghosts, murderes and whatever else? Where did they come from? Why do they keep so many? Another burning question, why did those three that got killed by the zombies keep jumping around during the chase scenes as if they were just a bit out of breath, when they had just pulled out of themselves really long knives, that looked like they went all the way in?
I liked how they let the movie end without an end. Everything was said, in a sense, from their point of view.
So, did I like the movie? Damned if I know. I swing between I liked it and I didn't. Which makes it also hard to give it points like I usually do. Well, I settle down for the golden middle...
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
December 2011
  • Tom Cruise (Last Samurai, Top Gun) as Ethan Hunt
  • Jeremy Renner (28 weeks later) as Brandt, part of Ethan's Team.
  • Paula Patton as Jane, part of Ethan's Team.
  • Michael Nyqvist (Millenium Trilogy) as Hendricks, The-bad-guy-who-wants-to-destroy-the-world.
We went to see the fourth installation of Mission Impossible. I liked the first one, I liked the third one, and have never seen the second one (don't like John Woo). I've been looking forward to see a good solid action thriller, and MI:4 delivered. It's quite a long movie (133 minutes!), and I never even noticed how long it was. Fast action, the odd little joke (although sometimes a bit on the edge of being too 'comedy'), and no too big holes in the story. The hottest thing in the movie is the BMW i8 :-D.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
July 2011
«Hanna»
  • Saoirse Ronan (The Lovely Bones) as Hanna, the young girl on a mission
  • Eric Bana (The Timetraveller's Wife) as Erik, her father.
  • Cate Blanchett (Indiana Jones IV, Elizabeth, LOTR) as Marissa, CIA.
This is about Hanna, a 16 y/o girl, being sent on a mission by her father. We learn in the opening scene that she is living with her father in the cold wilderness and hunts deer with bow and arrow, fights with sticks and her bare hand expertly against her father, shoots with a pistol, all in training by her father.
The mission her father then sents her on is to kill a woman. Why and who she is we learn soon. She's a CIA agent, quite capable and ruthless, and she killed Hannas mother long ago and tried to kill Hanna and her father, too.
The movie is on the one hand a thriller, with Hanna being chased through half of Europe, and her father chasing Marissa all the same. On the other hand it's about a 16 year old girl, that comes in contact with other people, civilization and boys for the first time.
That mix could end in a desaster, but I would say it was done well. It's not fake, it's not ridiculous, and it's not cheesy.
I was pretty impressed with the acting of Hanna, but also with the acting of Cate Blanchett. They did both a great job.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
June 2011
  • Jake Gyllenhaal (Day After Tomorrow) as Colter Stevens, the Pilot who has to solve the bomb mystery
  • Michelle Monaghan (I, Robot) as Christina Warren, his love-interest and co-passenger
Colter Stevens makes up in a cabin, that looks a bit like a space-ship, and finds himself talking to a screen that shows a uniformed (Air Force) woman talking to him. After a while it turns out that he is on a secret mission to find a bomb on a train, and the guy who has put it there. He gets sent back in time into the body of a man, who seems to resemble him close enough to be 'compatible'. He then has only eight minutes to find the bomb - and the bomber. The bomb has gone up already, that's not why he has to do that, but it seems as if that bomber plans on bombing all of Chicago, if not stopped.
He gets sent back again and again and again, until he finds out. In the same time, he also learns, that he himself is dead, and just part of a science-fiction mumbo-jumbo program that puts him back in time into that other person, but all that is just a 'simulation' within the computer (and, it seems, be more or less happening in a parallel universe).
The movie was halfway entertaining, reminded me a lot of Deja Vu with Denzel Washington (but not as good by far), and seems to ride on the parallel universe theme, that got started with Matrix long ago, and got really rubbed into Hollywood with the success of 'Inception'.
To me, the movie was having too much not thought-through ideas, and the acting (or the script) wasn't the best, either. The only person I could really relate to, was the female Air Force officer leading him on his mission.
I prefer Deja Vu, but you could still give it a try, if you like the idea behind it.
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
February 2011
«True Grit»
  • Jeff Bridges as the drunken US Marshall Rooster Cogburn
  • Hailee Steinfeld as the determined young girl Mattie Ross, who hires Cogburn
  • Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney, the guy who shot Mattie's father
With all the high praise I went to see True Grit with high expectations. Unfortunately I came out 2 hours later rather disappointed. The movie was 'okay', but very slow, and I didn't like the end. I don't even feel like saying anything else here, too much trouble.
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
November 2010
«R. E. D.»
  • Bruce Willis (Die Hard, 6th Sense) as Frank Moses, the retired CIA agent 'they' want to kill.
  • Mary-Louise Parker (Red Dragon) as Sarah Ross, the girl Moses wanted to date when everything started, and that gets pulled along through this mess.
  • John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox - Moses' buddies that help him.
  • Karl Urban (Eomer in LOTR) as the professional CIA killer who is after Moses.
This is about Moses, who is a very bored ex-CIA agent (and one of the best he was), who is just about to date a girl (Sarah) he knows only from the phone, when hell breaks lose. The cops, the FBI, the CIA, they are all after him and want to see him dead. He barely escapes from his house and manages to get to Sarah in another city.
He has to kidnap her, since she certainly doesn't believe him, when he tells her they have to run because they tried to kill him, and will do the same with her. She only believes him after she manages to escapes and almost gets kidnapped by a cop. So the two of them set out to find out who is orchestrating the attacks, who is behind all of it and why.
Along the story he is picking up buddies from his time as an active agent. All are around his age, all but one are also retired, and all (but one) of the retirees are just as bored as he has been.
Let the fun begin!
This is real popcorn cinema. It's not labeled as an action movie, they call it action comedy, and that's what it is. There's action, yes, but more so there's plenty of comedy. If you want to have a good laugh, go and see this movie. :-) It's not one of these films that I want to buy on disc, but I am glad I went, and therefore
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
August 2010
«Salt»
  • Angelina Jolie (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Lara Croft) as Evelyn Salt, the CIA agent accused of being a double-agent.
  • Liev Schreiber as Ted Winter, Salt's collegue.
  • Chiwetel Ejiofor (2012) as Peabody, Counterintelligence.
Salt saw me entering the movie theatre with mixed feelings, with all the pretty bad (professional) critics. But still I liked the trailers, and I wanted to see it.
First off, what's it all about? We meet Evelyn Salt, CIA agent. She is interrogating a Russian defector, who says there's a mole in the US, about to kill the Russian president when he attents the funeral of the former US vice president. After a few minutes she decides he's a fluke and wants to leave, and he says that the name of the mole is - Evelyn Salt.
She dismisses it as very ridiculous but finds all her collegues looking at her suspiciously, and Counterintelligence around, too. Her only thought is to call her husband, since (as she says) the family members often get killed when an agent gets blown.
Since no one really believes her, and she can't reach her husband, she has to escape, which she does, escaping from the CIA building in a spectacular way, getting caught, and escaping again. At home she finds her husband gone. Just escaping Counterintelligence again, she sets out to go to New York City to the funeral. Is she the killer or not? I am not going to say more, since I want you to go and see it yourself :-)
With all the mixed feelings and with all the bad reviews by the professional critis, I can say, that this movie turned out to be a great action movie. Certainly there are a few small potholes in the story, but it's an action movie. There are no show-stoppers, no big holes. The story unfolded in a neat way, the speed was quick and picked up speed from there. The action scenes were good, and the acting was pretty good, too. It was the best action movie in quite some time, and one of the best movies this year (Inception being the other).
To me, one of the main points about a movie being good or not, is if I can 'accept' the story, if I forget, I'm in a movie theatre, but feel inside the movie. This one did it. It sucked me in at the beginning and spit me out at the end. By the way, I like the end :-)
Only thing I didn't like was the looks of Angelina - first half of the movie she ran around blonde, and in the second half black, but short-haired. SACRILEGE!!!!!!
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
August 2010
«Inception»
  • Leonardo DiCaprio (Shutter Island, Blood Diamond, Catch me if you can) as Cobb, the leader of the team.
  • Marion Cotillard (A Good Year, Taxi) as Mal, Cobb's wife.
  • Ellen Page as Ariadne, the new member of the team.
  • Ken Watanabe (Last Samurai) as Saito, the one hiring the team for an inception.
I remember the times when I was not very excited about Leonardo DiCaprio. But for a while now, I think he is one of the 'must see' actors out there. Not only that he plays very good (loved him in Catch me if you can), he seems to sign up for the good movies only.
I've seen the trailer of Inception some time ago, and thought it looks interesting. I like those movies that play on several levels of reality (13th floor), and with DiCaprio in it, I knew I had to see it.
The main story is about a team that can virtually crawl into your head when you dream and influence these dreams - appear in them, interact with the sleeping person, influence, look for secrets. It's like real life, but in the dreams.
A rich Japanese hires the team to sneak into the head of a competitor to convince him to break up his huge conglomerate when he inherits it for his close-to-death father.
They have to come up with an idea to sneak that idea into the dreams of the victim, and find a way that includes 3 layers of dreams within dreams. Since they have enough time to do all that on a flight from Sidney to the US, it's all pretty straightforward and easy, right?
No, Sir, it isn't. Firstly, because our team-leader Cobb has a monster of a skeletton hidden in his closet, that comes into play as a major threat to the project: His wife killed herself and he feels guilty, and his subconsciousness has a way of including her into the dreams Cobb is walking in. And she always comes up as an opposing force, killing the ones that he wants to interrogate or play tricks upon, things like that.
The second show-stopper is the fact, that obviously these inception/deception things (sneaking into dreams) are pretty normal business out there, and high-profile business leaders get trained to have a subconsciousness that recognises when such a 'break in' takes place and to start fighting against it. This happens in form of other 'people' in the dream that come against the intruders as gun-slinging body guards.
All in all the story unfoldes nicely, the speed of it is well-balanced, the actors are good, and I really recomment this movie!
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
February 2010
  • Robert Downey Jr. as the Sherlock Holmes
  • Jude Law as Dr. John Watson
  • Rachel McAdams as the ex-lover and mysterious villain Irene Adler
I went to see Sherlock Holmes, without knowing at all, what it was about. I've read the Title and thought I knew at least a bit what to expect.
I was wrong. This version of Holmes and Watson shows these two world-famous guys from a completely different angle.
They were both big buddies, not one almost like a servant to the other, as it is often shown. Dr. Watson was more the exasperated equal friend, always busy helping Holmes out of bad situations, in which Holmes brings himself out of a complete disdain of the world around him. He respects no one and he fears no one, because they're all twits. Something along that line.
The story is about a bad guy who is a member of a cult into the occult, who sets himself into the top position of that cult, who makes the average man on the street believe that he is into black magic, and who wants two things: Remove the government of the British Empire, and set out to rule the world. Sherlock Holmes has to find out, what this guy is actually about, and how he wants to get it. And we have to follow him from one riddle to the other. The acting wasn't bad, the story neither, but the movie didn't touch me much, didn't include me. And what really set me off was the fact that no mystery lasted for long. After each little sequence of the film, with riddles showing up, Holmes investigating, Holmes knowing things that should make the audience wonder (How? Why?), there's a break and everything gets explained. That takes the suspense completely out of the film, it takes the audience for stupid, and doesn't leave much apart from two guys quarreling with each other as a victorian copy of Walther Matthau and Jack Lemmon. Or like a mix of Indiana Jones and Young Sherlock Holmes (from 1985) with a pinch of violence to spice it up. This was not my film, and I don't want to see the already planned sequel.
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
November 2009
  • Katie Featherston as Katie, the girl with the demonic problem
  • Micah Sloat as her video-filming boyfriend
  • And that's already almost everybody appearing on screen :-)
I didn't know what to expect when I went to see this movie. On the one hand it was obviously quite a success in the US (with a second part already planned), and the rating on IMDb is quite good, too. On the other hand, it was made with just 10.000 USD, it had those cover-up hype-words (like 'scariest movie of the year'), which usually mean the movie is a fail, and marketing's supposed to fix it. But I liked the trailers and thought I give it a try.
The story is quickly told. There's a girl who supposedly gets haunted by an evil presence since she's eight, and her boyfriend, who's videotaping their life over some weeks, to document what is happening. In the beginning he didn't believe her at all, but that changes quickly :-)
I found the movie quite entertaining, it had its scary moments and was just 'different'. The quality of the acting and everything was okay (better than 10.000 bucks), the filming with the camera was not so bad, since (thankfully) they were considerate enough to their future audience to make him buy a serious video camera, not some shitty little handycam.
I recommend this movie, and give it 7 points, minus 1 for the fact that it definitely can't be seen a second time. It's good because it's new, and when you have seen it, it's not new anymore *grin*.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
November 2009
«2012»
  • John Cusack (Grosse Pointe Blank) as Jackson Curtis
  • Woody Harrelson as Charlie Frost
  • Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon, Saw) as President Thomas Wilson
I usually like Roland Emmerich's movies, and go and see them. Only his last one, I didn't even want to try: BC. Well since I liked "Day after Tomorrow" pretty much, I went to 2012 with high expectations.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why I got so disappointed. There was no story worth mentioning (and I didn't expect a documentary), the acting was low class, and there were too many interruptions in the flow of it.
The story goes as follows: The world goes down, just as some old religions were predicting. So much for the reason. Then we can follow one thread showing how the scientists find out that there's really something bad going to happen, and the leaders of the world deciding to do something very secret so save some. One could buy a ticket to get on some ship, for 1 billion euros per person.
Another thread is about a guy (Cusack) finding out that weird things are going to happen, meeting a weirdo who predicts the end of the world (Harrelson), and just getting back to his city to grab his kids, his ex-wife and her new guy to escape total destruction. In the end they also make it to those ships and are able to sneak in without paying the fee, and the world is saved, as usual.

I had a problem with the flow of the movie: The switching between the two threads was done in a way, that each time just pulled me out of the flow, and made me realize that I am watching a movie - I hate that. Then, our hero Cusack, he managed from the beginning of the movie to the end, to just *barely* evade death. Those things happen in each action movie and in each desaster movie. That's okay. But here, it was his way of living, and that is so ridiculous and unrealistic, that it didn't let me get in sync with the movie, too. To top it all off, the acting was so bad, that one could never feel anything about the portrayed actors. I only liked one character/actor, and that was Harrelson, who isn't even on my list of favourite actors.
The movie is three hours long, and the only interesting scenes are the major catastropy sequences and the few scenes with Harrelson, especially his end on top of that hill.
If you haven't seen that movie yet, wait until it comes on TV!
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
November 2008
  • Daniel Craig (Casino Royale) as James Bond
  • Olga Kurylenko as Camille
  • Judy Dench (Plenty of James Bond movies, Chocolat) as M
After missing out seeing Casino Royale in cinema, I definitely wanted to see the sequel of it. That's a First for James Bond, doing a sequel. So far all the movies were all independent stories with everything completely settled, no lose ends. But that's not the only thing different to other James Bond movies. In fact, this is not a James Bond movie at all, comparing to the long line of movies with that name. It is the second of a new Generation of Bond movies, after Casino Royale. There's no typical Bond soundtrack. The typical intro is missing, there are no gadgets whatsoever, no Q, no Miss Moneypenny, hardly any flirting.
If you want to see a James Bond movie, you will probably be disappointed to some level. If you want to see a solid fast good action movie, you will have a great time with 'A Quantum of Solace'.
The story picks up right where Casino Royale ended, and is a long chase through half the world to nail down another villain. The thing is, we only get to hear that he - again - is not the big villain, there's a group behind it all, and we have just scratched the surface. So again, plenty of lose ends to pick up the story there again in two years or so.
Did I like this movie - you bet! Daniel Craig is really good, a tough fast agent of force, Judi Dench (who I always hated in the old Brosnan-Bonds) was just brilliant, the story did not have any unignorable holes.
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
June 2008
  • Indiana Jones as Indiana Jones O:-)
    Okay okay... Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones, Star Wars) as Indiana Jones
  • Karen Allen (Indiana Jones, Starman) returns as Marion Ravenwood
  • Shia LaBeouf (I, Robot) as Mutt Williams, aka Henry Jones III
  • Cate Blanchett (Lord of the Rings) as Irina Spalko, the leader of the bad guys
It's been awhile. 19 years I think. And then I almost didn't go to see the fourth Indy movie. When I heard it includes aliens, I thought this can't be right.
In the end I decided, to still go and see and, with appropriate low expectations, hoping to get positively suprised.
I am glad I went. This movie is really a great sequel. It has everything needed. There's Indiana Jones, there is plenty of adventure-kind of action, humour, treasure traps and all that stuff that we love about Indy. The movie was fast, straight and I never felt bored or 'out of the story' for even one minute.
Sure there are some gaping holes in the story, like the thing with the fridge to hide from the A-bomb exploding next door, but hey, first of all, priest grabbing a beating heart ouf of a living man isn't much more logical either, and second since the whole movie didn't take itself very serious, it was easy to forgive such things.
I also loved all the little pointers to the previous Indy movies, like the snake he didn't want to touch, or the crate with the Ark of Covenant. Funny as it is, I found plenty of pointers to the Mummy series with Brendan Frazer, too, which I welcomed a lot. Since I saw 'The Mummy' I kept saying that the script must have been written to be some new Indy movie :-) It looks to me like we're going to see a lot more Indy movies in the coming years, with Henry Jones III finally taking over from Henry Jones II. Too bad, that Henry Jones I was not in this movie, but I guess he likes playing Golf too much these days :-)

[Originally I gave it 8 points, but now after seeing it again 3 years later - downgrade to the same rating as Temple of Doom]
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
January 2008
«The Mist»
  • Thomas Jane as the main person David Drayton
  • Marcia Gay Harden (Meet Joe Black) as the God-Junkie
  • Laurie Holden (Silent Hill) as the beautiful teacher Amanda Dunfrey
For the first time in a really long while, I went to see a Stephen King movie. According to critics I was reading on IMDb before, it was supposed to be a really good movie in itself, and good work adapting the story into a movie.
It's about a random bunch of people being stuck in a small supermarket. What has happened? No one really knows, but first you see army trucks with soldiers racing by, you hear sirens, and then comes fog. Really thick fog, can't see more than 2 metres. Then someone comes running in panic into the supermarket, screaming, with blood on his face. Something has grabbed his friend in the fog or so, but he hasn't seen much.
So, panic is up, no one knows dick, horror is waiting outside. They close the doors and lock themselves up. And here's where the other horror starts - as it goes with King's novels. He always likes showing how people will go nuts when in absolute fear. Some go nuts, get aggressive, threaten others. Some simply refuse to believe anything and say it's just fog, let's go out. And one is talking to 'God' and never shuts up her mouth throughout the movie. Reciting from the bible, telling people that this is the punishment of god for sinful life and all that bullshit.
We soon learn about the kind of monster critters out there, and the religion junkie starts to get her followers, who believe her, and start looking for scape goats among the people in the supermarket (Salem, anyone?)
Towards the end, the main characters of the movie, set out to reach a car and drive away ("as far as we can get, see if we find the end of the fog").
I am not telling more.

The first two thirds of the movie I really liked. There were plenty of jump scenes, the critters were cool and of good quality CGI-wise, and there was a good flow to the story. But towards the end, it lost all that, somehow. The story's end was pretty predictable (even for me, I never try to think ahead, usually that spoils some of a film's magic). Not only did I actually guess right about the end, somehow (even though for a change it was not a typical Hollywood ending) it didn't fit. It didn't fit to the behaviour of the lead guy. It didn't fit to anything that guy (David Drayton) was doing all through that movie.
So, I am not thinking, what a waste of time and money, but it's really not a movie I want to see again.
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
December 2007
  • Nicole Kidman as one of the bad guys, Marisa Coulter (The Translator)
  • Daniel Craig as Lord Asriel, the uncle of the girl (James Bond)
  • Dakota Blue Richards as the girl Lyra Belacqua
  • and several CGIs of importance
I have seen some trailers on TV about this movie, and since I normally like fantasy and SciFi movies, I thought hey let's go and see it.
It playes in a parallel universe of ours, where people have 'demons' trailing them (and belonging to them), they're sort of like our souls, just outside and taking on the appearance of some animal. From looking at the animal you can already tell a bit about the person attached to the 'demon'.
The main person is a girl growing up in a school/university, thinking she has only an uncle as family, who is an important person there. We learn that the ruling guys in that world are the bad guys, and we learn that Lord Asriel, the uncle of the girl has found out something and that he has to fear for his live. And from here on the journey begins. The journey to the north. The uncle left for up north, and the girl gets 'invited' by a mysterious lady to follow him with her. It turns out she's one of the bad guys too.
There's plenty of riddles to solve, some fighting, we learn about amazing creatures like huge intelligent fighting polar bears, flying witches and things like that.
I am not going to tell more, read the book or go to the movie (or visit the web site *g*).
The movie was entertaining throughout, but nothing else. It would have been nice to see on TV, but not worth the trip to the cinema. It was not really transporting me into its world, it did not really cast its spell on me. And it reminded me a bit too much of old movies based on Jules Verne's books.
Maybe kids will like this movie more.
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
October 2007
I went to the movies with Carinne and Lisa, to see an animation film. It was really great, you have to go and see it!

Aside from the beginning (typical american shooting scene, completely out of place) it was a very well done film, with a good storyline (I only realized two or three times that I am actually there seeing a movie) and it's good to watch for grown-ups, too.
The computer graphics were just awesome, as realistic as it was (from the clothes of the people to the houses and the sidewalks), in five years one can't tell the difference to 'real' anymore.
The jokes were good for all ages (unlike Ice Age 2, which I found pretty boring for grown-ups). 80% of the time I was sitting their laughing tears.

It also displays a lot of love and realism for the cooking itself. I have hopes that now millions of kids all over the world will be a bit more interested into cooking. Since cooking is one of my big hobbies, I am quite happy with that.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
July 2007
  • Bruce Willis as John McClane (6th Sense, 5th Element)
  • Timothy Olyphant as Thomas Gabriel, the villain
  • Justin Long as Matt Farrel, the nerd (Jeepers Creepers)
  • Also introducing... the all new shiny F35 :-)

Whoa! After more than one year I finally made it to the movies again. Not that I didn't want to go, but there was only bullshit coming in the past 14 months.
Since I have seen and loved the first three Die Hard films, I certainly was excited about a fourth part of it. Only thing that made me wonder, was the obvious fact of Bruce Willis getting a bit old to play the star of an action movie. After reading comments on the web about 'Live Free or Die Hard' I was sure to go.
The story is told quickly. It's about a super-nerd (Thomas Gabriel) who wants to settle a score with the US government. Getting filthy rich on the side wasn't a problem for him either. He employs all the best known computer hackers in the US to write special pieces of code, which each on it's own didn't raise any alarm. After obtaining the codes from each, he was killing them to remove the traces (and I guess to block the US government to get help from them). Setting his plan into motion, shutting down the traffic networks (traffic lights, trains, airports) made the FBI wake up. They wanted to talk to the known hackers to see who was behind that. Our well seasoned cop for big time trouble, McClane, was picked by his boss to go and fetch the hacker Matt Farrel. He arrived there right on time to stop the bad guys killing this hacker, too. From then on spiral goes quickly down to chaos - more and more networks get shut down by the bad guys, including electricity, and McClane and Farrel slowly figure out who is behind all this and why.
So, how did I like the movie and how did grandpa Willis fare? He fared pretty well, one could really buy the story of McClane, the hard cop once more. And the story was straight and quick and full of good old 80s action. I strongly recommend this movie to everyone into action movies.

I give it 8 out of 10 points.
May 2006
  • Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt (Last Samurai, War of the Worlds, The Firm, Cocktail)
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman as Owen Davian, the villain (Capote, Red Dragon, Talented Mr. Ripley)
  • Michelle Monaghan as Julia, Ethan's wife (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Bourne Supremacy)

The story in short is that he captured a *really* bad but powerful guy, who just told him "You made a mistake, I will go after your wife or girlfriend, when I am out of here", and 10 minutes later (in the movie) that guy escaped with massive support from a jet, a helicopter and plenty of guys looking like the best SWAT team.
Another 10 minutes later Ethan's wife was in the hands of the villain and Ethan had to steal some bio-weapon for him in exchange of the wife. After delivering the weapon he barely escapes and is coming to rescue his wife.

I had seen the first M:I movie and found it really great. The second one I didn't want to see, because of men flying around in slow motion (John Woo). The third one I wanted to see because of the trailers I've seen and the good overviews.
Good that I went. This was the most thrilling thriller/action film in a long time. It went straight as a ruler, kept me on the edge of the seat all the time and there were not many stupid scenes. The only (minor) thing that I didn't like was that they revealed to the watcher too early who the mole in IMF was. They should have kept that until Ethan was finding it out himself.
The fighting scenes were pretty well orchestrated, especially that first part where they were rescuing the captured chick. That was really great and made my heart race like wild. The untamed camera was matching quite well, too.
I missed a bit the 'sensuality' part, as they put it in the PG-13 rating, but Hollywood, doesn't know too well how to handle that, anyway. It's either overboarding orgies or asexual reproduction...

I give it 8 out of 10 points.
May 2006
The second part of Ice Age was an entertaining little movie, but it was far from the class of the first part. In the first part there was a story, a goal to be reached, the jokes were intelligent and often subtle, it was a movie good for kids but also for grown-ups. The second part didn't have a story, the jokes were pretty childish, it was simply a movie for kids.
If you liked the first part, and you're not going to see it with kids, don't go. Wait until it comes on TV.
I give it 4 out of 10 points.
March 2006
«SAW II»
  • Shawnee Smith as Amanda, the escaped victim of part 1 (Saw, Armageddon, The Stand)
  • Tobin Bell as Jigsaw, the killer (SAW, 24, Alias)
  • Donnie Wahlberg as Detective Matthews (Sixth Sense)
Second parts of successful movies usually have it pretty hard to meet expectations. This here is a bit different, simply because I did not really know what to expect.
In the end it was a typical second part to me. It was not boring, there were no big holes, and I enjoyed sort of watching SAW part 1 again from a different angle, but it didn't lift me off my butt as much as part 1 did. I was expecting too many of the things in advance, like the scene with Obi in the burner, or especially the chick caught with her arms in that box with the syringe. Nothing was really shocking, and there was no *real* twist in it. Okay the idea with everything turning out to be history already (filmed the day before) was neat, but not mind-blowing.
There is one twist that I didn't expect, that was about Amanda, and I wonder how they want to continue with that idea, and there was one shocking scene that was indeed pretty shocking to me. That was the scene in the end with the muscle guy Xavier cutting off his own skin to be able to look at the number.
All in all it was pretty entertaining, but didn't reach part 1.
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
January 2006
«King Kong»
  • Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow, the chick (The Ring)
  • Jack Black as Carl Denham, the movie producer (Enemy of the State, Demolition Man)
  • Thomas Kretschmann as Captain Englehorn (Der Untergang, Blade 2)
Everyone knows the story of King Kong, so I don't have to go in medias res. What I can say about this version of it, is that it's a bit over three hours long (I guess typical for Jackson), and that this is too long (not like at LOTR, where it's not ;-)). They could have cut out at least half an hour in the part before they hit (literally) the island. I was never so bored as to look on my watch, but still it was too long. Also there were a few dinosour fighting scenes that I find a bit too long.
The effects of the movie, the computer generated scenes are just fantastic, especially King Kong himself is done really really well. The girl looks great, too, and very 20/30s. That was a good choice.
As it has been already with the black/white King Kong movie, when I was a kid, I didn't like the end, but I can't say it came as a surprise *g*.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
July 2005
  • Tom Cruise as the dad Ray Ferrier (Mission Impossible, Last Samurai, Top Gun)
  • Dakota Fanning as the little nag Rachel Ferrier
  • Justin Chatwin as the son Robbie Ferrier

War of the World is the remake of the good old 'War of the worlds' movie after H.G. Wells' book (who also made The Time Machine, this time directed by Steven Spielberg).

This time the movie is centered around a selfish, unreliable dad, and his two kids who happen to be with him for the weekend (brought there by the ex-wife and her new husband) when alien machines, buried in the earth for a long time decide to get out of their hiding places. During the story Ray, the dad, has to fight off aliens, improve the relationship with his kids (especially the son) and find a way to get the kids and himself savely to Boston.

What makes this movie worthwhile is mainly the way Steven Spielberg did it. He tried something new, and it works pretty well: Instead of centering the movie around the action, zooming in on the aliens, on the killing, on the spectacle, he keeps his aim on the three main characters. You might get a good sight on the killer machines or the aliens, but very often you only see the 'monsters' in the background or you just see destroyed vehicles or dead people flying through the air behind them while they are on the run. The view stayes on the actors. This works pretty well and gives you a realistic feeling.

I liked this movie from the first to the second-to-last minute, there wasn't time to get bored, the plot was without any big holes, the action good, the effects technically good and not there for themselves. So I would give this movie 7 points. But what about the last minute? It spoils it all. Thank you, one more time, Hollywood for destroying a good movie by an overwhelming Hollywood-style happy end. ARGH! The dad and his kids have to travel many miles, aliens everywhere, soldiers and tanks flying to the left and right, the son even getting seperated from them, following soldiers behind a ridge (the soldiers' trucks and tanks coming back in fire an instant later), and STILL AND ONCE AGAIN, all of them, plus the ex-wife and her parents find each other happily re-united, all well and uninjured. BARF.

I give it 6 out of 10 points.
June 2005
  • Nicole Kidman as Silvia Broome, the Interpreter (The Others, Moulin Rouge)
  • Sean Penn as Tobin Keller, the Secret Service guy (The Game, Colors)

The Interpreter seems to be a thriller, about an interpreter working for the UN. She overhears a conversation between two hidden people. The short bit that she understands points to a planned execution of an african president set to come for a speech at the UN.
She gets in touch with the US Secret Service and they try to figure out what's going on. Is it really true? Will there be an assassination? Or did she make all that up? Who is behind it? During the movie we learn that the african president started out as a young freedom fighter, freeing his country for a bad tyrant, and then after being in power for some time, turned out to be a tyrant of the worst case himself.

Which brings me to the second layer of the movie. If you ask me, this movie is clearly pointing at Mozambique and Mugabe. This movie is an accusation against Mugabe. So either you go and see a thriller with an interesting plot, or you go and watch a political movie about one of the worst african dictators of these days.
By the way, the 'african' language spoken in the movie (Ku) is a made-up language. The director of the Centre for African Language Learning, Said el-Gheithy, was commissioned in January 2004 to create Ku.

I give it 6 out of 10 points.
February 2005
«Saw»
  • Leigh Whannell as Adam
  • Cary Elwes as Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Dracula, Twister)
  • Danny Glover as Detective David Tapp (Lethal Weapon, Predator 2, Silverado)

Thriller about two guys who find themselves chained to opposite walls in an old shower room with a dead guy between them and the kidnapper playing riddles with them.
The killer, who is never to be seen, sends them little messages, already hidden in their pockets or in places in the room. Messages like the one telling the Doctor that he has to kill the other guy within the next few hours or his wife and daughter will be killed. Messages like two hidden saws that they find that are not good enough to cut the chains around their ankles but definitely good enough to cut through those ankles.
The doctor remembers having heard more about this killer, because he was once the main suspect himself. This killer loves to play such mind games where the abducted people usually end up killing themselves while trying to follow the game. Only one ever escaped.

The film is very tight, fast with a good story and I haven't found one second to catch my breath, and that for a film of 100 minutes. I really enjoyed it (if one can say with such a grisly film that one enjoyed it), but the strange thing is, I came out of the film and boom it was gone. I didn't feel anything special afterwards, I wasn't stunned, scared, awed or whatever. It's like I have seen the film 10 years ago, not 10 minutes ago. So I can't give it the 8 points that I would have given to it while it was on.

I give it 6 out of 10 points.
January 2005
  • Audrey Tatou as Mathilde (Amélie)
  • Dominique Pinon as her uncle Sylvain (Alien 4)
This film plays right after the end of World War I, with flashbacks to earlier scenes, mostly from the trenches of WWI, but even some earlier.
The story is about Mathilde, a French woman in her early twenties, looking for her fiancé who didn't come back from the war. She got message that he was sentenced to death for 'Self Inflicted Mutilation'. Meaning he let the enemy shoot through his hand to get back home. Death penalty in the French army means you get kicked out of the trenches into the no man's land between the front lines. If you come back - you get shot. If you don't, the Germans will shoot you. If they don't, you will starve of hunger of freeze to death.
Well, Mathilde insists that he's alive and employs a P.I. do go and find traces of him or of the other four soldiers that were thrown out of the trenches on that day. To enhance her chances she pursues the little she knows, as well.
I won't say more about it, so not to spoil it. So, how did I like that film? It was an okay film, it was never boring, but it didn't excite me too much either. It was a nice piece to watch, with interesting scenes and insights into the time around World War I. The plot was good, consistent and with twists and turns. If you haven't seen it and have some time to spend, go and watch it.
BTW: Rating this film with 'R' is completely ridiculous and a people finding this film needs an 'R' has really a big mental problem!
I give it 6 out of 10 points.
December 2004

So far I didn't put a comment on here when it was a kiddie film, unless I liked it a lot (Ice Age, Kirikou). But I think I will start putting any film I have seen in cinema.

I decided to go and see that film after seeing the commercials/trailers on TV. It looked like smart fun, for grown-ups as well as kids. Since Lisa came after Christmas for a week, I thought that's a good chance to see it. It's a cartoon about a family of ex-superheroes (Dad is super-strong, Mom is flexible, like she can stretch her arms 10 metres) and their two teenage kids and a baby. Ex-superheroes because all the superheroes got sued by people that got hurt by them in the process of getting rescued, silly things like that.
Well it's completely imaginable that some American lawyers would come up with such ideas, just think of the granny that sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot - give me a break!
Anyway all the super-heroes retired to live a normal live, secretly, unknown to be those ex-superheroes. But since Daddy is a bit of the body builder stereotype (all muscles no brains) he gets the family into trouble with a bad guy and they have to fight.
So apart from the story, which was okay, how did the film fare? I would say it was plenty of fun for Lisa, but it's not exactly what I would call a good cartoon, also recommendable for grown-ups. If you're curious about the film, see all the trailers you can find on-line, and then you have seen all the good stuff of the film. The rest is a bit boring and a bit too long.

I give it 4 out of 10 points.
December 2004
  • Nicolas Cage as the treasure hunter Ben Gates (The Rock, It Could Happen to You)
  • Diane Kruger as Abigail Chase (Troy, The Piano Player)
  • Sean Bean as the bad guy Ian Howe (LOTR, Sharpe's Shooters, Golden Eye)

National Treasure (what a title) is very entertaining film, written Disney all over it. No swear-words, no sex, no naked skin, no real violence, you can safely take your cat along and she won't get scared. But nevertheless it's still a well made film that won't leave you bored in your seat.

It's the last real film in this year, and I hope next year will do a lot better. National Treasure falls in line with several films that year that were really good, but not great (apart from Last Samurai, which is a great film, and The Village which is on the other end of the spectrum). I don't know why it was so hard this year for the film industry to serve a REALLY great film. In January when I have seen Last Samurai, I was so stunned by it, that I said, 'I think I have already seen the best film for this year' and oh boy was I right! When I look back on the films I have seen this year they were mostly good, but all had something that was lacking. :-/

I give it 7 out of 10 points.
September 2004
  • Sigourney Weaver as the Elder Alice Hunt (Alien, Gorillas in the Mist)
  • Bryce Dallas Howard as the blind Ivy Walker
  • Joaquin Phoenix as the boyfriend Lucius Hunt (Gladiator)

This was the third film I saw, that was directed by M. Night Shyamalan. And the last one I will see. The first one was 6th sense which is such a great film, the second one was already a disappointment (Unbreakable), and now the third one is really just bad. Never again! There was absolutely nothing in that film that I remember as thrilling or exciting, and around half of the film I was debating to leave, and just stayed because I wasn't sure if Carinne liked it or not.

And their website? Can't say anything since it doesn't let me in. I am using Opera, and I *do* have the Flash player installed. Looking at their javascript, I can see they check on IE and on Mozilla. Trying it out, identifying as Mozilla, it works. So, just as the film is lowest low-grade, the programmer of the website is so, too.

I give it 2 out of 10 points.
August 2004
«I, Robot»
  • Will Smith as the cop Del Spooner (Men in Black, ID4)

This film is about a cop who gets on the case of a robot killing a human. Something that is completely impossible, thanks to the Three Laws, with the first saying that a Robot cannot harm a human.

I liked that film pretty well, it was smooth running popcorn cinema. There was just nothing awesome in it, but it was still not so bad. What starting bugging me a bit in the second half was the fact that I got so much reminded of the present US Administration and Bush and the illegal Iraq war and the 'war on terrorism' that I had a hard time taking the film for a film.

The robots suddenly turned against their human owners, mindless machines following the orders of the positronic supercomputer VIKI, that had decided that to protect the humans from each other they had to be arrested. Sounds so much like Bush and his war against terrorism and those (certainly not all, but too many) mindless Americans that still today scream against Germany and France for not supporting the war, even after so many high placed guys of the US (like Powell and Rize and the boss of the CIA) had to admit, that Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden and the attack on the WTC, and even after all that time not finding any hidden caches with Weapons of Mass Destruction. It sounds so much like Bush removing bit by bit so many liberal rights from the US-American citizens, saying it's all for their protection.

As you can see, this film doesn't leave so much impression that I can actually talk about it, so I give it 6 out of 10 points, not bad, but not special either.
I give it 6 out of 10 points.
June 2004
  • Dennis Quaid as the scientist Jack Hall (Alien, Gorillas in the Mist)
  • Jake Gyllenhaal as his son Sam Hall (Donnie Darko)
  • Emmy Rossum as Laura Chapman

I always like to go and see Roland Emmerich films, that's real popcorn cinema to me. Since I liked the preview too, I was surely going to see it.

This film shows how the northern hemisphere gets thrown into a new ice age, thanks to global warming, that will melt most of the north pole's ice, which in turn will make the gulf stream stop. Chaotic weather, with tornadoes by the dozen, huge storms and temperature dropping by a hundred degrees in the centre of the three continent-wide storms destroy our civilization. The southern half of the US of A have to run for shelter in Mexico (where it's just snowing, nothing else), and the northern states just have to sit it out. Same in Europe and in Asia, which gets barely mentioned (apart from a few seconds in Scotland).
That's the first half of the film. I really liked that a lot! Great effects, and it all sounds not so wrong. There was plenty of stunning scenes, and a good tempo.

The second half of the film then simply became like so many other catastrophe films. The one scientist who was warning of what will happen, is in Washington DC, and his son is stuck in New York, sitting the winter storm out in the central library. Daddy has to go and rescue him. Certainly he will make it.

As usual with Emmerich (good for his wallet), the end was a bit too much Hollywood, too happy end, but okay. I just wish it would have been him finding his son and that group and them setting out (still on snow-shoes) to go to Mexico or wherever. End scene them disappearing into the snowy landscape. Full Stop.
But no, certainly the good US army had to fly in with their good helicopters to save the good people, and hundreds if not thousands of other good people that suddenly appeared on the rooftops of the skyscrapers of NYC. Where did they survive? No one knows. Why did they not set out to go to the south, like the majority of the library group? No one knows. Did they have the same knowledge as the remaining group in the library, being warned by the ONE scientist who understood what's happening about leaving? Definitely not.

I give the first part 9 and the second part 5 out of 10 points
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
May 2004
  • Uma Thurman as the Bride (The Avengers, Batman & Robin)
  • David Carradine as Bill (Kung Fu)
  • Lucy Liu as O-Ren Ishii (Charlie's Angels)

After seeing the fantastic first part of Kill Bill, I was counting the days until I could go and see the sequel. Finally I was able to go, and then this. I was somewhat disappointed. It wasn't really outright bad, it wasn't really outright boring, but it was the perfect anti-climax to Vol. 1. Mr. Tarantino should never have cut that into two parts! If it would have been one long film, I think I wouldn't see the second part as I do now. After the first two hours of what is now Vol. 1 with its thrill, the violence, the speed of it, continuing a bit slowing (okay, forget the 'bit'), continuing slower paced, leading to the end, that would have been okay. But since the first part is now some months old, and with the expectations I had for Vol. 2, I felt a bit like the guy jumping out of the birthday cake "BOOO" and realising he is two hours early and no one is there.

The one good scene in it was that piece where The Bride got buried alive, until she walked into that café asking for water. And I like the piece where she tore out the last remaining eye from Elle. What I also liked (first I thought what the hell) was Bill's speech about super heroes and superman and what's the difference between Superman and the others. And what all that had to do with The Bride. That was a nice parable, and I could understand Bill on that point.

After buying Kill Bill 1+2 on DVD and watching them one after the other during a weekend, I can say that I was right with what I said after seeing the second part on its own in cinema. Seen together, Kill Bill is really ONE great movie. On that background, I still vote Kill Bill 2 on its own as a mere 6, but seen as the second half of a great movie cut into halves, I'll bump the 6 up to 9.

I give it 9 out of 10 points.
January 2004
  • Ken Watanabe as the rebel Katsumoto
  • Tom Cruise as the US war hero Nathan Algren (Mission Impossible, Rain Man, Cocktail)

Since I saw the first trailers of 'The Last Samurai' I wanted to see that film. And I did see it The story is about an American veteran from the wars against the Indians, who left the army and works for Winchester, advertising their rifles as The Hero of the Indian Wars. But in fact he is a broken man, who drinks whiskey like horses drink water, to drown his memories and nightmares about killing innocent Indians and all the cruelty of those campaigns.

When he just lost his job (showing his disgust to the people in his drunkenness), he got offered a REAL job: Military Advisor to the court of the Emperor of Japan, helping together with his ex boss in the army to build up a modern Japanese army to fight against a rebel.

This rebel and his army fight against the official Japanese army. His claims are that he is defending the honour of the emperor and Japan, fighting against the bad western ways, upholding Bushido and the caste of the Samurai. He is therefore also refusing to use modern weapons, they have their swords and the long bows of the Samurai.

Captain Algren gets captured in the first battle, the whole regiment exterminated, and he is brought to the remote village in the mountains, where he is held captive over winter. In that time of recovery (from his many battle wounds, but also from his alcoholic problems), he learns about the ways of the Samurai, about the Japanese culture, about the real reasons for the rebellion, and he learns to fight like a Samurai.

He learns that there are two factions in Japan, Hashimoto leading the small group that wants to uphold the Japanese ways, and keep the western ways out, and on the other side is the group around Omura (MASATO HARADA) who wants to learn as much as possible from the western nations, buying their arms, making Japan strong. They also have the weak young emperor under their influence. The emperor can't decide on anything and just lets the action take its course, not speaking for or against any of the two opponents.

In the end Algren is fighting side by side with his new brothers in arms, against the army of the emperor, fighting against a larger better equipped army, fighting like a Samurai, at the side of Hashimoto, the leader of the rebellion. They lose the battle, and everyone gets killed apart from himself and the badly wounded Hashimoto. He then helps Hashimoto to commit Seppuku, dying as a true Samurai, the LAST samurai.

Tom Cruise then brings the sword of the last true Samurai to the emperor, reminding him with that of the true Japanese values. Finally the emperor speaks up and stops a contract just about to be signed, about the delivery of weapons from the USA.


How did I like this film? I think, I already found the best film of 2004! It is breathtaking, the story is well thought through, I would say, the dialogues were not out of place, Tom Cruise was excellent, the other actors just as well, and the Japanese girl is also very beautiful. It's a really heroic film, telling the story of honour in great pictures. The (happy) end of Tom Cruise not dying, is the only spoiler. In the first moment, that was a bit out of place (the usual Hollywood-happy-end), but for several reasons, it's okay this time:

1) When Tom Cruise was at that village in the mountains, everyone wanted him to get killed, since he was the enemy and he let himself be captured, but Hashimoto refused, saying that this American must have appeared there for a reason, he just cannot say which one. Well I think, the reason was the end of the story. Someone had to bring the sword to the emperor, reminding him of his duty to Japan as a whole, upholding tradition. Without that gesture, along with the right words, the whole fight and the death of Hashimoto would have been futile.

2) Hashimoto said just before he died, that Tom Cruise has his honour restored, meaning (i think) that he does not have to commit suicide.


This film is absolutely fantastic, a must see, but it's not a chick's film, mind you.

I give it 10 out of 10 points.
December 2003
  • Ian McKellen as Gandalf (X-Men, Sleepers)
  • Elijah Wood as Frodo (Deep Impact, The Witness)
  • Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (The Talented Mr. Ripley)
  • Liv Tyler as Arwen (Armageddon)
  • Orlando Bloom as Legolas (Pirates of the Caribbean)
  • John Rhys-Davies as Gimli (Sliders, Star Gate, Indian Jones and the last Crusade)
  • Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn (Witness)
  • Christopher Lee as Saruman (Dracula, James Bond: Man with the Golden Gun)
The third part of Lord of the Rings was a bit disappointing to me, but it was still good enough to be recommended. I can't even put the finger on why I was disappointed, it's a good film, just when I compare it to Part 1 and especially to Part 2 (the best) then it can't reach that class. It was a bit lengthy at times, I think, and there was no really breath taking mouth-opener scene as in the other two parts. Well, 'Return of the King' still plays in the Good-films-League and that is good enough. And I already had my 10-points-film this year: Kill Bill
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
October 2003
  • Uma Thurman as the Bride (The Avengers, Batman & Robin)
  • David Carradine as Bill (Kung Fu)
  • Lucy Liu as O-Ren Ishii (Charlie's Angels)
Wow, here comes a great film! I went to see Kill Bill, hoping for the best, fearing the worst. I never liked Tarantino films, I tried two or three times to see Pulp Fiction, and just couldn't get through with it even one time, and From Dusk till Dawn is a remarkable piece of boring horror. So I feared Kill Bill would be shit, too. But I saw the trailers and a report on TV, and read several comments (from the No. 1 German film magazine and one of my favourite radio stations), and finally I went to IMDb and looked up the rating there. Then I knew I have to try this film.
In a sense it's a typical Tarantino film, it's chaotic, it's outright weird (like they are beeping out the name of the revenge angle (Black Mamba - Uma Thurman) each time it gets said), it contains a longer sequence in Japanese Manga style, and it jumps around in time like mad, but it all somehow fits, and all that just keeps you on your toes. That film is 2 hours long, and just before the end (without noticing that it's about to end), I was wondering for the first time, where in these two hours we are, and I thought, it must be still like one more hour! That shows how much this film sucks you in, keeps you on your toes.
The fighting sequences are always on the edge, they are not really realistic, but I could always succeed in ignoring that and just taking it in, as it should be in a good film. They were not that unrealistic, as in IM2, or Matrix, and there were no jumping buses as in Speed! I got often reminded of the Bruce Lee films in my younger days. And they are what martial arts films have to come up to.
So, Mr Tarantino, sorry for not liking your other films, this one I really love (so far; how dare you splitting it up in two pieces!!!).
I give it 10 out of 10 points.
August 2003
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger as the good old Terminator (6th day, Eraser, Total Recall, Conan)
  • Nick Stahl as the future resistance leader John Connor
  • Christanna Løken as the bad new Terminator T-X
Has it really been 8 months since the last film??? God, what's wrong with the films these days?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - finally! Terminator 3! Much much awaited!
I went there with big expectations, and I came out rather happy. The film is really good, the story was good, I liked the doomsday feeling about it, and I liked the (not so many) special effects.
What was really super about it, was the fun/humour within. I liked the little puns and jokes spread all over , and I loved to see how much Arnold Schwarzenegger loves to be The Terminator.
What I did not like so much, was the fact that this time the robots were the main persons. In Terminator 1, it was Linda Hamilton, transforming from a scared stupid chick into the tough fighter, and it was the soldier from the future. They were the leading characters, and T-101 was the very strong under part. In T-2, it was the young John Connor, and again Linda Hamilton who were filling the story, and the main supporter of them, that was T-101! In T-3, the main parts are played by T-101 and T-X, the two machines, and John Connor and his chick, what was her name, they are just providing some underground on the side.
Oh, and one other thing. T-X was a woman. So what? Great idea? I really don't get why so many people were complaining about that? Can't take a woman in a strong role???
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
December 2002
  • Pierce Brosnan as James Bond (Thomas Crown Affair, Dante's Peak, The Deceivers)
  • Toby Stephens as The Villain Who Wants To Destroy The World Gustav Graves (The Great Gatsby)
  • Halle Berry as The Hot James Bond Chick Jinx Johnson (Monster's Ball, X-Men, Last Boy Scout)
  • John Cleese as the new Q (Fish called Wanda, Life of Brian)
Bond, James Bond. I went with Carinne to see the new film. I really liked it a lot, it was pure fast action, packed with lots of technical gimmicks, as it should be in a James Bond film, and Halle Berry is a real hot chick, with a real role in this film. I never got bored, even though the film is rather long. I could really recommend it.
Certainly, since it's a typical Bond film, I don't think I would ever buy the DVD or so, as I can't watch them more than maybe 2 times.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
December 2002
  • Ian McKellen as Gandalf (X-Men, Sleepers)
  • Elijah Wood as Frodo (Deep Impact, The Witness)
  • Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (The Talented Mr. Ripley)
  • Liv Tyler as Arwen (Armageddon)
  • Orlando Bloom as Legolas (Pirates of the Caribbean)
  • John Rhys-Davies as Gimli (Sliders, Star Gate, Indian Jones and the last Crusade)
  • Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn (Witness)
  • Christopher Lee as Saruman (Dracula, James Bond: Man with the Golden Gun)
After one year of waiting, I could finally go to see the second part of Lord of the Rings. I went in with very high expectations, after all the first part was just great. And 'The Two Towers' met all my expectations! The film was even better than the first part, there was not a single minute in those 3 hours, where I was tempted to look on my watch, it sucked me into the story in the first minute and spit me out at the end, making me ask for more! The computer effects were just great, the story adaptation from the book was super, and all the new figures (like the Ents), landscapes and buildings were wonderfully designed. This is a MUST, and there is nothing bad to report about 'The Two Towers'.
Again, I just beg the makers to put 'The Hobbit' into the same kind of 3-hour-movie!
I give it 11 out of 10 points.
August 2002
«M.I.B. 2»
  • Will Smith as Agent J (ID4, Enemy of the State)
  • Tommy Lee Jones as the 'resurrected' Agent K (Deep Impact, The Witness)
I went to see Men in Black II, with high expectations. Unfortunately they did not really get met. Yes, I laughed throughout the film a lot, it was funny, but I did not like the story, and the jokes were kind of old and not the kind that you can see two or three times or even more. I think, Men in Black II is a super example of a typical boring, unimaginative, doing-it-all-over-again Part-2-Film. :-(
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
April 2002
  • Jodie Foster as Meg Altman (Contact, Sommersby, Silence of the Lambs)
Panic Room is a film I wanted to see for two reasons: Because of Jodie Foster, who usually only plays in good films, and because the critics were so good AND it was a success in the US.
So, did the film meet my expectations? Yes, for the first 9 tenths of it, it did. There was a good story, good ideas, suspense, everything was there. Only, I am sad to say, I did not like the end! That was boring. They should have come up with something else, either the bad guys kill them and make it a BAD end therefore, or they let the 'bad' guy who turned nice by helping Jodie Foster, go without him getting caught, making it a GOOD end, or anything like that, but not just like it ended. That was disappointing!
I give it 6 out of 10 points.
April 2002
  • Guy Pearce as the time travelling Alexander Hartdegen (Rules of Engagement, L.A. Confidential)
  • Jeremy Irons as the Über-Morlock (Die Hard 3)
  • Sienna Guillory as the chick to save in the 'present' (Rules of Engagement)
  • Samantha Mumba as the chick to save in the future Mara
Do you know the old classic film The Time Machine?
Well this is the remake of it! I liked this remake a lot, it has all the nice things that the original had, the story was good again, the machine itself was done neatly and the actors were good, too. It was not the mind-blowing super-film, but it was really good, and I advise you to go and see it, if you haven't already!
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
April 2002
«Spygame»
  • Robert Redford as the old CIA recruiter (Horse Whisperer, Indecent Proposal, The Great Gatsby, Sleepers)
  • Brad Pitt as the arrested spy Tom Bishop (Meet Joe Black, 7 years in Tibet, Sleepers, Seven)
This film was an okay-film. I don't regret seeing it, but it did not really touch me, either. CIA operative Nathan Muir (Redford) is on the brink of retirement when he finds out that his protégé Tom Bishop (Pitt) has been arrested in China for espionage. No stranger to the machinations of the CIA's top echelon, Muir hones all his skills and irreverent manner in order to find a way to free Bishop. As he embarks on his mission to free Bishop, Muir recalls how he recruited and trained the young rookie, at that time a sergeant in Vietnam, their turbulent times together as operatives and the woman who threatened their friendship.

For the bad homepage I should give even one point less...
I give it 6 out of 10 points.
March 2002
«Ice Age»
Finally again a very good animated film that is not only for kids . I really love that film a lot and recommend it to everyone strongly. I laughed all the time, the film absorbed me, it was never boring and the animations were very good. You haven't seen it yet? Your loss, but you can do better!
And you also should go and see the homepage, there are not many homepages as well done as this one.
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
March 2002
  • Samuel Le Bihan as the world-travelling Grégoire de Fronsac (Three Colors: Red)
  • Mark Dacascos as his Iroquois friend Mani (Double Dragon)
  • Monica Belluci as the beautiful mysterious Sylvia (Double Dragon)
This is a French film, and I went there with my Teddine, to see it in German. I liked the film a lot, but I give the honour of telling about the plot to someone else, as I found on IMDb a very good review to which I can agree happily, written by Mike Richards, from the UK:
In 1765 something was stalking the mountains of south-western France. A 'beast' that pounced on humans and animals with terrible ferocity. Indeed they beast became so notorious that the King of France dispatched envoys to find out what was happening and to kill the creature. By the end, the Beast of Gevaudan had killed over 100 people, to this day, no one is entirely sure what it was, wolf? hyena? or something supernatural? Whatever it was, shepherds had the same life-expectancy as the red-suited guys in 'Star Trek'. The Beast is a popular myth in France, albeit one rooted firmly in reality; somewhat surprisingly it is little known to the outside world, and perhaps incredibly it has never been made into a film. Until now, and what a film!
Categorising 'Le Pacte des Loups' would be tricky, but I'll try. Its a period costume horror martial-arts werewolf film and surprisingly all those pieces work together provided you don't concentrate too hard. Why no one has previously made a period costume horror martial-arts werewolf film before is a mystery, but I expect plenty of imitations in the future.
Taking the Beast as its starting point the film quickly diverges from historical fact and steps up the pace. We are introduced to the two heroes, Gregoire de Fronsac ( Samuel le Bihan) and Mani (Mark Dacascos) in the midst of a torrential storm that culminates in the first of many magnificently staged fights. De Fronsac has been dispatched by the King to find the Beast. De Fronsac represents the new rational world of the Enlightenment which is being forced to confront the backward, superstitious France outside of the capital. Mani, an Iroquois shaman and hunter befriended by de Fronsac whilst adventuring in the Americas brings another type of wisdom entirely. At the time of the film America was a dark and mysterious place, home to all of the fears of Europeans. Of course it was shortly to become the home of the very republicanism that would sweep across France and remake the Old World in a new image.
'Le Pacte des Loups' wears its republican colours on its sleeve and uses the conflict between rationalism and the stereotypical backward villagers to drive home the point. This is good old-fashioned horror film territory and the source of much of the plot. Guvaudan is the sort of village that would give the inhabitants of Sleepy Hollow the creeps. If it were in England, Christopher Lee would be the lord of the manor and Peter Cushing the priest. 'Le Pacte des Loups' has one of the strongest French language casts possible, a mix of veterans and some up and coming talent. Here it is dominated by the priest Sardis (Jean-François Stévenin) and the saturnine Jean Francois (Vincent Cassel), a crippled hunter and explorer who rapidly becomes more dangerous than the Beast itself. Both are scornful of the changes coming from Paris and seek to shield their world from the future. The remainder of the population are either stupid, indolent, superstitious or just evil, holding back the new rational world of the big cities. The Beast is very much an extension of their way, as much as it is a physical monster, the Beast is a projection of all the villagers hatreds and bigotry.
A strong female role is unusual in films, but two? And such different characters. There is the strikingly elegant and almost hypnotic courtesan Sylvia (Monica Bellucci), playing her role of seductress with frigid professionalism. In a world where women had little more than their wits to protect them, she is the most dangerous of all and far more than she first appears. For most of the film you are unsure if she is going to help or hinder the heroes, she is always mysterious and captivating.
In complete contrast there is the innocent, fragile, and astonishingly beautiful, Madeiline (Emilie Dequenne), younger sister to the protective Jean Francois. Surrounded by evil, prejudice and superstition on all sides she is clearly the romantic heroine, but is also intended to represent the French Republic; the very symbol of which gives her name. De Fronsac falls hopelessly in love with this witty and charming woman, but in doing so he risks further conflict with Jean Francois.
The two leads are fantastic and share chemistry reminiscent of the relationship between Butch and Sundance. Le Fronsac is wise when needed, with a sensational put down for those who think that Mani is less than human. Mani is a man of few words but utterly dominates the screen when present. Needless to say, they are both fantastic fighters.
Horror films live or die by the creature and fortunately this film delivers. Wisely there is never a chance to get a good look at the animal - it is enough to know that it is big and nasty, the viewer's mind will fill in the details. The creature is also used surprisingly sparingly. When the viewer might expect it to pounce it doesn't, a few minutes later it appears out of nowhere - wonderful, shocking stuff reminiscent of 'Alien'.
Whilst the design of the animal from the Creature Workshop is perfect, some of the CGI work is a little below the standards we have come to expect - a couple of the daylight shots are well-below par, but the nighttime work is outstanding. Indeed one shot where the creature stalks out of the fog behind the hero has to be amongst the most effective CGI work in film. Cinematically this is some of the best work of late; it bears many resemblences to Ridley Scott's 'Gladiator' - luscious slow character-forming scenes mixed in with frantic camera work for the action scenes. Again, this strange hybrid style works exceptionally well, although perhaps it can get a little too frantic. Just about every camera and digital trick is used at least once, some to excellent effect (one flashback scene is particularly striking, using a strongly solarised effect to give it an otherworldly texture). One of the designers was previously involved with Merchant Ivory productions and the luxurious interior scenes have every bit as much detail as any period piece, (and a special word for the costumes that use some of the most sumptuous fabrics possible). A good deal of the film is lit by candle or fire light, filling the screen with warm oranges and flesh tones (and the film *never* misses a chance to show lots of flesh).
In contrast the exterior shots are frequently chill blues and washed out hues, making the French countryside look like a hostile world that could conceal all forms of dark secrets. The countryside itself is magnificently filmed and quite different to the stereotypical French landscapes.
Tragically all this splendour is playing to minuscule audiences, I saw it with just five other people whilst the queues for 'American Pie 2' stretched across the auditorium. Do yourself a favour and try a foreign language film. For those people who think French cinema involves two middle aged peasants smoking Gauloises whilst arguing about the finer points of philosophy this film will come as a revelation.
At 140 minutes perhaps the film runs a little too long and there are one too many plot twists (there is one near the end that is VERY difficult to accept, but just wince and accept it), but it doesn't outstay its welcome.
For the English-speaking market the film has been subtitled. Sadly they seem to be quite workmanlike translations and some of the wittier dialogue isn't translated, a shame because the script (even to this very poor French speaker) sparkles. A number of misspellings and grammatical errors in the subtitles should have been caught earlier, but for once you can actually read the subtitles.
This isn't great art, it doesn't redefine the genre and it doesn't preach. Horror by is very nature is irrational, there is nothing to learn from horror (apart from don't split up a group and never go down to the basement to check why the lights went out). This film delivers over two hours of solid entertainment, you'll probably come out with a silly grin on your face - and what more do you want?
Finally, a word of praise for the most imaginative dissolve between two shots I have ever seen - a woman's breast fading into a mountain. No doubt the women of the World are eager to find out just what Christophe Gans can do with the Eiffel Tower.
In short, I have to give 'Le Pacte des Loups' two paws up.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
December 2001
  • Ian McKellen as Gandalf (X-Men, Sleepers)
  • Elijah Wood as Frodo (Deep Impact, The Witness)
  • Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (The Talented Mr. Ripley)
  • Liv Tyler as Arwen (Armageddon)
  • Orlando Bloom as Legolas (Pirates of the Caribbean)
  • John Rhys-Davies as Gimli (Sliders, Star Gate, Indian Jones and the last Crusade)
  • Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn (Witness)
  • Christopher Lee as Saruman (Dracula, James Bond: Man with the Golden Gun)
Finally the long awaited first part of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was out. I had to see it, and I was wondering if it would really make me happy. I have read the books more than 10 times, in German and in English, and the danger was there, that I would be disappointed with this film, like with too many others. But hey, the film was really great! It went like the book, the characters were all like i wanted them to be, i was happy with it . And the 3 hours were not too long! In fact it did feel like any normal 2-hour-film.The only reason why i give only 9 points is that there was no stunning WOW-effect, but i guess that happens, when one knows the book by heart, right?
One negative thing: I say it with the books and i say it here: Before reading (watching) the 3 Ring books, read 'The Hobbit'! So please, you guys down there in NZ, make a 3-hour-long film of 'The Hobbit'.
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
August 2001
  • Sam Neill as the Dinosaur Man Dr. Alan Grant (The Horse Whisperer, The Piano)
  • William H Macy as the fake millionaire Paul Kirby (Air Force One)
  • Téa Leoni as his wife Amanda Kirby (Deep Impact)
  • Trevor Morgan as their son Erik Kirby (The Patriot)
The newest Dino-Film. Certainly I had to go and see it. This time it was again with Sam Neill, whom I have missed in JP 2.
The story is about Sam Neil getting sort of cheated into flying with a couple to Isla Sorna to go looking for their missing son. Certainly everything that could, went wrong. There's not much more to tell about the story, because there's not more of it, but JP3 runs at such high speed that one doesn't have the time to notice that. I really enjoyed the film, only the end was a little bit too much served-as-ordered, soo clean, smooth, abrupt. But okay.
From the dino side, one gets everything one could ask for, all the old 'friends' of JP1 and JP2, plus some huge flying dinos and a T-Rex killer as well. The animations are superb, the Dinos look terrific, and they got this time rather articulated, too.
The third part was more fun to watch than the second, but I have the feeling, that it will lose fascination more quickly (from watching it again) as JP2.
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
May 2001
  • Brendan Fraser as Rick O'Connell, the American with the crowbar (Blast from the Past)
  • Rachel Weisz as Eve Carnahan O'Connell and as Princess Nefertiri (Chain Reaction)
  • John Hannah as her brother Jonathan Carnahan (Four Weddings and a Funeral)
  • Arnold Vosloo as the Mummy and High Priest Imhotep (1492: Conquest of Paradise)
  • Patricia Velasquez as Meela Nais and Anck Su Namun
  • Oded Fehr as the guard of the tomb Ardeth Bey
  • The Rock as Mathayus the Scorpion King
'The Mummy Returns' is the long awaited sequel of 'The Mummy' and as I have loved the first part so much, I was very hot to go and see part 2. I went on the third day after it came out, and I am glad to say that this film is even better than the first part. They still know the trick of making the film scary, funny and full of action in the same time. For the full length of the film (which is longer than films are usual) I had hardly 5 minutes to catch my breath. One is sitting like in a roller coaster, speeding through loops and passing amazing monuments and sights.
Brendan Fraser as Rick O'Connell was his usual cool guy in the same line as Indiana Jones, Rachel Weisz as Evelyn Carnahan O'Connell was this time not only smart and sexy, she was fighting like a pro, and Arnold Vosloo as Imhotep was scary, overpowering, but this time even more than last time, he was also playing a sad role of a guy seeking to get his love back, no matter what. This time he lost his love in the saddest way, not because she got killed, but because she deserted him, ran away, refused to risk her life to save his, in the same time he was forced to watch as Evelyn did just that, racing through falling rocks to run to her beloved husband Rick and help him out of the gap he was about to disappear in. Mean Imhotep, Scary Imhotep, Sad Imhotep.
I give it 10 out of 10 points.
May 2001
  • Jean Reno as the inspector from Paris Pierre Niemans (Godzilla, Mission Impossible, Léon, The Big Blue)
  • Vincent Cassel as the other cop Max Kerkerian
  • Nadia Farès as Fanny Ferreira
Crimson Rivers is a French film about two cops that try to solve the puzzle of a serial murder riddle in France. It started rather slowly, pulling me into the riddle, taking up speed, leading from one victim to the next. The first two thirds of the film were really good, suspension was there, blood was there, and Jean Reno was at his usual oyster-like self. But the end was a bit of a disappointment to me. I had the feeling as if suddenly the makers were running out of money, and had to bring the film to an end. Too bad, the film could have been a good one. I still think it's an okay film, but if I wouldn't have seen it, I wouldn't have missed much. :-(
I give it 5 out of 10 points.
April 2001
  • Sean Connery as the ageing hermit William Forrester (Entrapment, The Rock, Rising Sun, Indiana Jones, James Bond)
  • Rob Brown as the black youth Jamal Wallace
  • F. Murray Abraham as the incapable arrogant Professor Robert Crawford (The Name of the Rose)
  • Anna Paquin as the rich beautiful intelligent white un-racist girl, for political correctness (Almost Famous, X-Men, The Piano)
This film is about two people, that on first sight are very different, but in the end we learn that they were very much alike.
One is William Forrester (Sean Connery), an old hermit, who hasn't left his flat in years, living amidst a thousand books, watching life happening outside, through his binoculars. He is well educated, very impressed by himself, white, and scared of life.
The other one is Jamal Wallace (Robert Brown), a young black teenager, bored with life, a great basketball player, and a ghetto-kid with a little secret. He is an avid reader of literature, and he is trying to write his own stuff, as well.
Jamal asked Forrester to help him write, and Forrester became his mentor, teaching him, to find his own style, perfecting him, helping him. But the more they got to know each other, the more Jamal started to be a mentor for Forrester, too. Showing him life, helping him to come out of his recluse, making him part of the life that was happening outside.
This film is really very good, the story is very nicely done, the players are both playing very sensitive, and the fact that Robert Brown appeared first time on a film, makes it so fascinating, because somehow the film mirrors the real life of Robert.
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
February 2001
I have seen this film before (August 2000), and it was great to see it again.
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
January 2001
  • Bruce Willis as the unbreakable David Dunn (6th sense, Armageddon, 5th Element, Die Hard)
  • Samuel L. Jackson as the man who knows Elijah Price (Star Wars I, Die Hard 3, Jurassic Park)
Disappointment Alert!
I went to a film that I put a lot of hopes into: Unbreakable with Bruce Willis, made by M. Night Shyamalan, the same guys that were doing the fantastic film 6th Sense. But I was very disappointed: The whole film was very very boring, nothing special about it, I only stayed 'til the end, because I was reading on IMDb that it has a very surprising end. Well, the end was a surprise, but not so much, I halfway expected this for the last 5 minutes, and it was also dished out in McD mentality - quick and tasting like nothing. :-(
The rating I give is still flattering:
I give it 4 out of 10 points.
January 2001
  • Russell Crowe as the general, slave, gladiator Russell Crowe (L.A. Confidential)
  • Joaquin Phoenix as the patricidal incestuous megalomaniac Emperor Commodus
The general who became a slave
The slave who became a gladiator
The gladiator who defied an empire

It has been four decades since chariots raced and swords flashed across film screens in epic dramas of a time long past. Now, director Ridley Scott brings the glorious battles of the ancient Roman arena back to the big screen in a sweeping story of courage and revenge.


The great Roman General Maximus (Russell Crowe) has once again led the legions to victory on the battlefield. The war won, Maximus dreams of home, wanting only to return to his wife and son; however, the dying Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) has one more duty for the general-to assume the mantle of his power.

Jealous of Maximus' favour with the emperor, the heir to the throne, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), orders his execution--and that of his family. Barely escaping death, Maximus is forced into slavery and trained as a gladiator in the arena where his fame grows. Now he has come to Rome, intent on avenging the murder of his wife and son by killing the new emperor--Commodus.

Maximus has learned that the one power stronger than that of the emperor is the will of the people, and he knows he can only attain his revenge by becoming the greatest hero in all the empire.

I only saw this film now, when they brought it again in the local film theatre, and I regret not having gone when it came out last summer. It's a really great film, with a superb Russel Crowe, a wonderfully disgusting corrupt imperator and a stupid cow. LOL. I hated the sister of the emperor, she spoiled everything. I also really loved the music. My favourite band 'Yello' used such themes in their music, too. Ancient and unreal.
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
October 2000
  • Kevin Bacon as the mad scientist Sebastian Caine (Sleepers, Flatliners)
  • Elisabeth Shue as the harrassed scientist chick (The Saint, Back to the future 2+3)
Okay, I made it to a NEW film for a change
Hollow Man, the film about a scientist (Caine) who discovers a way to make animals and then finally himself invisible. After a first half hour of introducing all the characters (like showing that Caine is very arrogant and a bit on the megalomaniac side, but also a genius, and like seeing that his ex-g/f who is also on the team has an affair with another scientist of the team), Caine tries the serum on himself to see if it works on humans. It does, the only problem is that they can't bring him 'back'. And then slowly Caine experiences the power of being invisible, of having the power to do what he wants, without the fear of getting caught. He wants to play god. After molesting two female scientists, he left the compound and raped a woman in the neighbourhood of his apartment. Finally the team decided they can't let him go on any more and they inform the controlling professor, which immediately gets killed by Caine when he was alone again. After taking that road, he locks all of his team into the laboratory and starts to kill them. That's where the action starts, but also where some flaws come in. Like - how easy would it be for you to touch metal, when it's already so cold that a tear is freezing right on your cheek?? All in all the film was not bad, especially the computer animations were really great, and it gave a new drift to the old idea of the invisible man. I recommend the film, but don't expect too much.
I give it 6 out of 10 points.
September 2000
I have seen this film before (December 1999), and it was great to see it again. Ah I wish Arnold would not grow old, LOL
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
August 2000
I have seen this film before (February 2000), and I enjoyed it just as much now. Which surprised me a bit, as I thought, now that I knew the most surprising film end in history in advance, I would maybe be disappointed. Not so!
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
August 2000
«The Mummy»
I have seen this film before (June 1999), and I enjoyed it just as much now
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
August 2000
  • Mel Gibson as the war-hero Benjamin Martin (Lethal Weapon, Ransom, Tequila Sunrise, Mad Max)
  • Heath Ledger as his son Gabriel Marin
  • Jason Isaacs as the bad British officer William Tavington (Armaggeddon)
Right on the first day when this film came out in Germany, I went to see it. I am glad I did!
This film is about the war of the American colonies against the British empire, and this war becomes the war of a tough veteran that gets drawn into it when one of his sons gets killed by a ruthless, arrogant British officer.
Mel Gibson plays the hero of this film and he plays it very very good. I am a Mel Gibson fan anyway, but I have been surprised how good he brought the role-playing to work.
Another reason why I love this film so much, is the fact that it runs for 2.5 hours (!) but keeps a very high pace and suspension through-out the whole film. There is also some little jokes and funny scenes in it, love and romance, the whole thing.
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
June 2000
I have been with Lisa in that film in October '99. Now we went again.
I give it 10 out of 10 points.
February 2000
  • Otto Waalkes as Otto
Hmmm, funny. Each time I go to the cinema in Austria, the film turns out to be a bore (like Sleepy Hollow).
This time I have seen Otto - Der Katastrofenfilm, a German film. I think it's the 5th film by Otto Waalkes, one of our most famous German comedians. Well, what can I say, I was disappointed. I guess he had his burn-out recently. There was only ONE single funny scene that was the typical Otto (when he had to signal with the flags). The rest was just boring, and not funny at all. *yawn*
I saw his other films (two of them when they were new in the cinemas) and they were really good, but this one is a no no.
I give it 3 out of 10 points.
February 2000
  • Johnny Depp as the Constable Ichabod Crane (9th Gate, Ed Wood)
  • Christina Ricci as Katrina Anne Van Tassel (Casper)
  • Christopher Walken as the headless Hessian Horseman (Pulp Fiction, A View to a Kill)
Back from the cinema... saw Sleepy Hollow. I have never heard of that story before, so I did not really know what to expect. I don't know how the other movies are, that were made about that story, but THIS one was rather boring. It was not that bad, that I wanted to leave ;-), but bad enough to make me wonder why I am there.
I am sure there are people out there that like this kind of stuff, but not me.
For those that don't know about the story:
It's about a police guy that has to travel in 1799 upcountry in New York to some tiny place called Sleepy Hollow. There are three dead people, all short of their heads. And he has to find out who did it. He believes in logic and science, and has to learn the hard way, that the story that the people from the village told him, was true:
A long dead soldier was coming out of his grave looking for his missing head, taking any head he can find.
I give it 3 out of 10 points.
February 2000
  • Bruce Willis as the shrink Malcolm Crowe (5th Element, Armageddon, Die Hard)
  • Haley Joel Osment as the ghost-haunted boy (Forrest Gump)
This is a film one really HAS TO see! The film itself is just somewhere above average. Good, but it's not something that would have been so bad not to see. But still good enough to recommend it. The thing that made me give this film 8 points is the end. This film has one of the most surprising ends in movies-history.
The story is about a boy that can see ghosts of dead people and talk to them, and of a child psychiatrist, that tries to help the boy to overcome his huge fear. Certainly first the psychiatrist does not believe the boy.
Okay. That's all I am going to tell you , oh wait there is one more thing:
This film IS NO HORROR Film.
I give it 8 out of 10 points.
December 1999
  • Pierce Brosnan as James Bond (Thomas Crown Affair, Dante's Peak, The Deceivers)
  • Sophie Marceau as The Villain Who Wants To Destroy The World Elektra King (Brave Heart, La Boum)
  • Denise Richards as The Hot James Bond Chick Christmas Jones (Starship Troopers)
  • John Cleese as Q's assistant R (Fish called Wanda, Life of Brian)
Bond, James Bond! Smart Pierce Brosnan did it again and I went to see the newest Bond. This is maybe the 5th or 6th Bond I saw at the movies. It was as good as I expected it to be. And Sophie Marceau, which I liked since her first French film, was also not only good looking, but playing good. And hey, I am in love with someone now! She is even Mzungu! well she is only on the screen, but that's okay LOL.
Denise Richards, playing Dr. Christmas Jones. WHOA!!!!
About the story I can't and don't need to say much. It's always the same. I just liked the film and the story was good enough. Go and see for yourself!
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
December 1999
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger as the troubled suicidal cop Jerico Cane (Conan, Terminator, Eraser, Batman & Robin)
  • Gabriel Byrne as Satan himself (Enemy of the State, Smilla's Sense of Snow)
  • Robin Tunney as Satan's bride-to-be
Hi folks FINALLY!!!! Arnold Schwarzenegger in a new film *phew* Man, did he take time! But it was worth waiting. His new film is very good. I was never bored, mostly I was almost chewing my fingernails awaiting the next move. The whole film was never overdoing the religious aspect, as I feared it would. The action scenes are plenty, they are made good, and they are not done for just themselves, I think. The special effects were also very good. I liked the whole film...
There is only one film that I liked better this year, and that was 'The Mummy'
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
October 1999
This time was a special time, going to the movies. I took my daughter Lisa to a film. It was her first time in cinema, and she liked it very much, especially the popcorn ;-) We saw Kiriku und die Zauberin (Kirikou and the sorceress).
That's an European co production (France/Belgium/Luxembourg), a cartoon that tells the story of the small boy Kirikou, that saves the little African village he is living in from the mean sorceress Karaba. It tells the African life, and also shows that people should try to not take anything for granted, and it shows that forgiving is also a way of living. I think this film is highly entertaining on the one side, but also on a subtle way very educating. I really like the film and it's very recommendable for kids.
I give it 10 out of 10 points.
August 1999
  • Ewan McGregor as the young Obi-Wan Kenobi (Nightwatch)
  • Natalie Portman as Queen Padmé Naberrie Amidala (Léon)
  • Jake Lloyd as the young Anakin Skywalker (Jingle All The Way)
I have been to the movies the second time this month. WOW . well at least I think I have been to the movies, but I am not really sure. I only remember that I wanted to go and see Star Wars, the best trilogy ever, the best SciFi ever, the best dream ever dreamed. Episode I they called it this time.
So I remember that I went to the local multiplex to see it. But then my memory blurs a bit. I can only remember I saw something that was a mixture of Sailor Moon for 5-year-olds, and a SEGA game for a game-console. Too bad. Thank god that I did not pay for it!
I give it 1 out of 10 points.
August 1999
«Vampire$»
  • James Woods as the modern van-helsingian Jack Crow (Contact)
  • Daniel Baldwin as his friend
  • Thomas Ian Griffith as the draculanian Jan Valek
  • Maximilian Schell as the turncoat Cardinal Alba (The Black Hole)
By night, vampires rise from loamy graves in search of human prey. By day, vampire slayer Jack Crow leads a contingent of Vatican mercenaries in a long-waged war against these enemies.
After destroying a vampire nest in rural New Mexico, Team Crow is savagely ambushed during the victory celebration by the unholy Valek, a vicious 600-year-old vampire. With most of his team massacred, and accompanied only by a young priest and the sole surviving member of his team, Montoya, Crow pursues Valek through the high deserts, culminating in a fateful confrontation between faith and immortality.
This film was good. Not a real stunner, but good enough that I recommend it to everyone who likes vampire-films.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
July 1999
  • Keanu Reeves as Neo (Speed)
  • Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus (Event Horizon, Red Heat)
  • Carrie-Anne Moss as Trinity
Hi folks, I made it to the movies again. On Saturday I saw "The Matrix" with Keanu Reeves.
How did I like it? Not at all. This film was rather boring. I caught myself many times looking on my watch, and once in the last half I was even debating with myself if I should leave... The story is not bad, the effects are rather interesting but this film was completely lacking any excitement or heights. This is a film you can watch on TV while ironing or so LOL. Okay, hope to find a better film next time.
I give it 4 out of 10 points.
June 1999
«The Mummy»
  • Brendan Fraser as Rick O'Connell, the American with the crowbar (Blast from the Past)
  • Rachel Weisz as Eve Carnahan (Chain Reaction)
  • John Hannah as her brother Jonathan Carnahan (Four Weddings and a Funeral)
  • Arnold Vosloo as the Mummy and High Priest Imhotep (1492: Conquest of Paradise)
  • Patricia Velasquez as Anck Su Namun
  • Oded Fehr as the guard of the tomb Ardeth Bey
  • Omid Djalili as the stinky filthy spitting Warden Gad Hassan
I have been to the movies again (finally). I saw 'The Mummy' and I tell you this film is really great. I went there with rather low expectations, as I have been hearing a report about it on the radio and they said this film is rather boring and with more than two hours much too long. In fact, I only went because I had nothing better to do, and I saw the 'Making of..' on TV on that day, which was interesting enough. So, I went there, and came out rather stunned. This film is just great, and no second of it was boring. Do you like the Indiana Jones films? Yes? Then you'll like this one, too. This film has all the elements of Indy. Lots and lots of action, scary encounters, fighting, running, hiding, but also never forgets to make the audience laugh. The special effects are very good, and one can enjoy them without having the feeling they were made just for the purpose of making good special effects. They really fit and are never overdone. The story is good and never takes any dumb turns.
-> As punishment for killing Pharaoh Seti and sleeping with his mistress Anck-Su-Namun, Egyptian priest Imhotep was mummified alive and cursed. But in 1923 he is inadvertently resurrected by treasure hunters and must be stopped before he can wreak his final vengeance on the world.
Another thing I really liked in that film (and not only I, half the audience was moaning at that scene (guess which half ;-)) when this chick Anck-Su-Namun had her brief appearance.
I give it 9 out of 10 points.
December 1998
  • Will Smith as the innocent caught in the middle lawyer Robert Clayton Dean (MIB, ID4)
  • Gene Hackman as the smart guy with the persecution complex Edward 'Brill' Lyle (The Firm, Mississippi Burning, French Connection)
  • Lisa Bonet as Dean's not-so-ex-girlfriend Rachel F. Banks (Angel Heart, Cosby Show)
  • Jon Voight as the villain (Mission Impossible, Heat)
This time I have seen "Staatsfeind Nummer 1" or better known to my English-speaking audience as "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith and Gene Hackman.
This is a film for those who like the paranoia-side of the Xfiles. It also has good action and a good plot. Although I caught myself checking my watch three or four times I still recommend it.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
October 1998
«Godzilla»
  • Jean Reno as the French agent Philippe Roacheé (Léon)
  • Matthew Broderick as the naive Dr. Niko Tatopoulos (Ferris Bueller's Day Off)
  • Maria Pitillo as his impulsive ex-girlfriend and wannabe-reporter Audrey Timmonds (Natural Born Killers)
This was a good film. Lots of action and special effects. There was never a part that was boring or too illogical (no jumping buses). The animations were very good and Jean Reno was as good as ever!

Now I am waiting for a second part (I bet one of those babizillas escaped ).
I give it 7 out of 10 points.
August 1998
  • Ewan McGregor as the student and watchman Martin Bells
  • Nick Nolte as the cop Thomas Cray (Cape Fear, 48 hours, Down and Out in Beverly Hills)
  • Patricia Arquette as Martin's girlfriend Katherine (Ed Wood)
  • Josh Brolin as Martin's crazy friend James Gallman
I saw Nightwatch (the US-Version). A good film, I enjoyed it very much. Again. Again?
Yes, because back in 95 I saw the original (Danish, but here in Germany dubbed into English) Nattevagten.
I think the original was better (in fact I saw it even two times), but still I would suggest you go and see it, if you have not seen it already.
I give it 7 out of 10 points.