humpback Reviews

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

major *Yawn*

[3/10 · 28 December 2007]

Well, this had a nice and catchy trailer, but that is (almost) all that can be said about this in a positive vein.

Sorry to say this is as unoriginal as they come - Predator chases Aliens through human township and surroundings. People die (mostly) in messy ways, but it is really easy to spot just who will eventually survive. Actually there is just about one surprise death throughout, and even that becomes obvious since the >>> victim <<< goes tellingly hysterical a few sharp cuts back....... never a useful thing in horror movies.

Too bad that all the semi-cool moments were stolen straight from previous installments (swimming Alien, dripping saliva from above etc.), anyway, and even these were solidly wasted in lame, uninspired scenes or not followed up at all..

Oh, and the script non-chalantly throws out established "alien-lore" out of the window, say, by massively re-defining the alien gestation cycle and time-frame, Predator weaponry, hybrid-alien off-spring. Most of the Aliens also seem to have taken evening-classes in speed-redecoration of human habitats.... rebuild hospital interiors in less than 15 minutes ? Not a problem...... sheesh !

Well, to be... fair....there are some nicely creepy moments, yes (the hybrid stalking through the local hospital is.... macabre), but these are totally wasted, as whatever minuscule atmosphere is being built up in these, evaporates instantly through too-fast cuts, wooden acting (to be polite) and plot-holes you could comfortably drive through with an assault-tank. A few, rare laughs (like the stoned clerks....)... some ham-fisted "poetic justice".... and's that all there is.

Renting the DVD may be the most economic way to watch this.... contraption.... although I would rather opt to watch the trailer, it simply is so much better than the movie.... and free, too !

The Legend of Evil Lake (2003)

Well Worth Watching

[9/10 · 15 August 2004]

Lucky Me, I got to watch this at the local "Fantasy Film Fest" (under its anglicised title "Legend of Evil Lake"), and was pretty well surprised.

First off - humanly possible, yet well choreographed swordfights/meleeing, plus some more inhuman demonic magicking. This felt nice for a change, I for one start to grow bored and jaded once one enters the realm of obvious wire-Fu these days - there are some extraordinary movies and hundreds of mediocre wanna-bees down that particular road. The fighting here seemed authentic, yet breath-taking and tense - without even a single bouncing of the walls or ceiling. Second, the plot, while featuring a love-story at its core, was less saccharine then one would dread imagine (Korean movies are notorious with regard to that ), with the possible love triangle put to good effect, motivation-wise, yet never dominating the unfolding plot.. Third, cinematography, set-design ( breathtaking - especially the palatial sequences and the ruin setting for the exorcism), backdrops and even the soundtrack are definitely top-notch. Well, Korean movies are rightfully famous for that, still it's pleasing to see. Fourth, the acting was solid, although the sub-titles did not seem to do justice to the inflections notable in the actors' voices. On the other hand, longer sub-titles would distract from the viewing even more. And the plot at least attempted to fill a lot of background and motivations in, although doing so less obviously than most generic Hollywood exposees (usually via the explanation to the coincidentally hapless know-nothing )...

<spoilers AHEAD> The plot ? It steers nicely on the line between heroic adventure and mystical tragedy - from the opening sequence, where the ancient Korean High King entombs an evil demon-worshiping shaman into the ground of a sacred hollow, binding him into the very ground with his sacred sword (which must stay stuck...) to the main story nine-hundred years later, where in the embattled realm of Shilla the high general Biharang is not only beset by the numerous enemies of his queen, but also by her love, which he cannot reciprocate, because of his love for the peasant girl Jaumbie. Things really start to roll, when assassins send from the royal court ( though not by the queen, some rivals try to upset her relationship with her commander ) try to kill Jaumbie, who, flying through the woods near the ill-omened lake pulls an old sword from the ground in self-defence...

From that point forward, everything is up for grabs, as the demon-shaman makes a swift, possessive and bloody comeback and plans to take painful revenge on the royal bloodline, Biharang trying to save his love Jaumbie (who is possessed/dominated by the demon after drowning in said lake), the queen and the realm at the same time, courtiers scheme and rivals get in the way. Things get very bloody at times, and torture, dismemberment and some exorcisms round out the list of "bad-things-happening". Some unexpected plot-twists and exorcisms make things even more complicated, and only in the parting shots is the eventual outcome finally revealed - just who can be saved, and at what price....

This is definitely worth watching if you like Asian sword-fighting stories, unless of course you absolutely want/need/crave wire-Fu (not much of that) or massive explosions (none at all). Yes, it is not quite a "Musa - the Warrior", and yes, it has some weaknesses but not every worthwhile movie is the "Godfather" either, and even the "Godfather" has its faults, right ? I will definitely try to see this again, which will probably mean getting the DVD, seeing how few Korean and other Asian movies make their way to Europe and the US these days.

8/10 chopsticks

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

sorry, no bananas

[3/10 · 20 July 2004]

Well, being a fan of the comic and liking, if not enthusing over the first spiderman-movie, I really wanted to like this - and after the second trailer I made certain to see it. Looked like one of this summer's highlights...

What a let-down it turned out to be - while Spidey 2 does have some pretty nice fight scenes, nifty ideas for setting and some great moments of the dry wit that makes the comic so special ( Gotta love the newspaper staff - or the elevator scene, for the record..), this also suffers from intense emotional overload. Nothing against some intelligent, relevant minor plots, BUT...... there is just too many cluttering sub-plots leading no-where special or any place at all, far too many of the non-spiderman scenes we could easily have done without simply because they are _redundant_ (yes, I am no dimwit, after the very first letter from the bank we all realize theat Aunt Marge is in financial troubles. There is no second or third scene necessary - unless the scriptwriter gets paid per word, I guess. His "quality" writing is certainly up to those lofty standards ), many more could have been edited to _some_ degree of crispness and several of the smaller running gags turn stale when seen for the second time...and then again, ad-infinitum ad-nauseam...

As for Spidey's temporal inability to "perform" properly - did someone forcefeed the scriptwriter some mildewed books on clicheed Freudian theory recently ?

<Spoilers ahead> The movie's one big problem is, that it rips off the better scenes from the first movie, and rehashes them. I mean, is MJ ever in danger from anything else than dropping to her death (which, on the other hand happens all the time - even to Aunt Marge..) ? Why is it always the same house on fire with Spidey running inside to save the lost kid ? As for the 'Grand Finale'.....<shiver> besides Doc Oc's sudden turn-around of ethics and ability to listen to constructive advice the utter inanity of disposing the movie's "McGuffin-device" by dropping it into the Hudson river (yeah, a fusion-reaction is some kind of fire...water will quench it, not like it is burning up metal and won't need oxygen anyway....... ROFL, even for a on-screem comic _that_ is hilariously silly ) - especially in dramatic slow-motion.... Still, if the movie had stopped there, I might have been miffed, but the whole thing would have remained a fine, if faulty movie.

But the script then goes on and pours another 5 minutes of pure, kitchy, clicheed sugar-coated soapiness onto the audience, which had (around here, that is YMMV ) the entire theatre angrily roaring and disgusted, while the movie was getting wrecked, thoroughly ! Dear "Scriptwriter", dear Director - if we want "Melrose Place - the Sugarcoating" we switch on the TV, drugged to the gills if possible, for *****sakes !!! I don't go to see Spiderman 2 to see Kirsten Dunst breathlessly hustling through new York in high heels and a bridal dress, especially not if done in Soft Focus !!! And if there ever has been a more stupid and cheesy final line in a comic-adaptation script than the "Go get them, tiger !", I stand stupefied.

As for the acting - just up to standards, as usual, the villain is (surprise !) the much more interesting character, Kirsten Dunst is in her usual "slightly-retarded" track and Tobey Maguire doesn't appear to have any fun at all (unless he turns into an FX, but then its not really Maguire anymore, hehe). William Dafoe's short cameo painfully reminds us that there are actually decent actors around, just not all that many in this contraption.

Waste your money at your own leisure - the DVD release will certainly do, especially if someone else paid for it. Oh, and as a warning - even the girls who tucked along hated it

PS _ I will never find out why the Doc's tentacles were hissing and making spitting noises... Probably meant to underscore the vile wickedness of AI-sentience and self-preservation... but does that give them the ability to do so ? 'nuff said

3/10 spiderwebs

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

a worthy finish

[10/10 · 17 December 2003]

wow.................... ok, I am still breathing. This is definitely the grand flourish that finishes the series. Epic, breathtaking and final. No more needs to be said !

Of course - one could list awesome settings, whether real, CGI or model, the true mother of all medieval battles ( I foresee an army of rip-offs going to copy this one ), great performances (Kudos for Bernhard Hill, John Temple and Viggo Mortensen - I never believed they could do real justice to those three rulers, but they did ) and an ending that truly kept the spirit of the book. Peter Jackson deserves an entire mountain range of praise for how he managed to pull this off.

As an aside - you need to have seen parts one and two to understand this,

latecomers to the series will be hopelessly lost plotwise. Second - while the battles are graphic, terrifying and violent, they are astoundingly blood-less. Still, not for the squeamish and faint at heart, and think hard about bringing children - if Helm's Deep had some bad moments, there is far darker stuff here ( especially for arachnophobiacs ). And yes - loath and dread from the rabid fans out there - Peter Jackson dared to edit some scenes to resolve in a different way from the book !

Let the "fanboys" ( I would call myself one - having read the book like 50 times in the last 25 years - but I loath the term and the people who claim to be "true fans", with the "one true vision" of the LOTR ) and nitpickers gripe and moan - I heard not one cheesy or cynical comment from the audience in the whole 3+ hours playing time (they sure weren't asleep ).

Honestly - who in his right mind cares if not each and every scene sequence and dialogue is precisely true down to the accentual inflections of what is written in the books - Jackson's (cinematic) telling of the story can stand proudly besides Tolkien's (literaic) one. Like the Hobbits - it needs bow to no-one ! 'nuff said.

Am off to get me tickets for another showing.

10 of 10 rings from me - and crossing my fingers the Academy will not do a cheap 'cop-out' on this one

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

very much worth it

[10/10 · 29 November 2003]

To start off - thanks, Peter Weir ! Thanks - first and foremost for not turning this masterpiece into yet another inane action slugfest for the 'attention deficit disordered' crowds. Thanks for sticking to detail, flavour and authenticity, a considered pace, smart dialogue and a glance at a world when the "far side" of the globe really was half a world (and months of travel) away !

'nuff said As for the movie, this is _not_ another action slugfest with wild explosions, high-paced chases (the "chase" here takes place at a leisurely 12 knots, app 20km/h or 14mph ), wire Kung-fu melees (cutlass, axes and pikes anyone ? ) and skipping over the (sometimes high) price of victories won. If you want slick battles and heroic antics, look elsewhere. With a grand 150 minutes running time both the actors and the setting have enough time to establish themselves in telling the deceptively simple story (guess what - it is not, but many of the turns and twists are happening within the narrow confines and among the crew of a man-o-war) of the frigate "HMS Surprise"s stubborn chase of a much larger French privateer around Cape Horn and far out into the great pacific ocean - transmitting a very accurate feel of the "why"s "how"s and "where"s of the story, with a plethora of subplots, plenty of nods to the "Aubrey/Maturin" series by Patick O'Brian ( who, I guess will not rotate utterly disgusted in his grave, even though they really hashed up his series' original plot - which was to be expected), scenes to make you flinch (19th century onboard surgery makes one truly thankful for modern painkillers) and a lot of very british humour - at times bawdy and old fashioned, but great fun nevertheless.

Of course - the more history you know, the funnier and engrossing this movie gets, and I suspect readers of O'Brians novels of having a clear advantage - yet my "not-so-book-wormish female companion" had an excellent time and enjoyed herself immensely - at least she suggested seeing the movie again a few days hence ( This might have been due to Mr Crowe, though ). So I guess the story-telling is engrossing and concise enough - at least if you can stand five minutes screentime without yet another blazing gun-fight or massive explosions. And when the battles occur, they hit you full force - no punches pulled, just utter mayhem, violence and destruction. As for the precise, detailed and authentic outfitting, the ships themselves, the depiction of storms, damages and high seas and the long slow passages of sailing - breathtaking.

The acting is solid to exceptional - Russel Crowe is the perfect choice for beefy, large bodied and physical Jack Aubrey, and Paul Bettany does wonders as his academic (read - frustrated naturalist and philosopher ) friend, conversational foil and resident genius ship's surgeon, Stephen Maturin.

The same holds true for the supporting cast who bring the sailors and officers of the "Surprise" to vivid life, especially James D'Arcy ( Tom Pullings), George Innes ( Plaice), David Threllfall (Killick ) and Max Pirkis (Lord Blakenley ), often by subtle acting in the background or with short comments. Kudos must go to Director Peter Weir for pulling this of - especially as the crew is clad in drab, tattered naval uniformity - and gets few distinctive lines besides "yessir". To judge just how hard this can be, go watch "Blackhawk Down"..... you live with them, you suffer with them, you know their habits and faults. No higher praise could be expected. The camerawork is good, with some great, moody shots and the soundtrack is acceptable, softly underscoring the events, but nothing very distinct, the movies only serious shortcoming, IMHO. The short interludes of classical music being played by the actors do not distract or grate either - lucky us.

Certainly one of the top three movies this year - miss at your own displeasure !

nine out of ten salvoes from me

Confidence (2003)

coming in low and stealthy

[9/10 · 22 August 2003]

Wow, this bird came in low, stealthy, under the radar and delivered the goods with a wham, while the whole lot of big budget summer "super slammers/ blockbuster/ whatever" came up cold ( as usual ). Go figure - and shoot the entire PR department who spend the money on Dumb Rai... ahem, Tomb Raider 2 and the other inanities.

Well - as for the highlights : Excellent movie, clever plot, clever dialogue, great performances ( Dustin Hoffman (cast against type) is interestingly creepy, Rachel Weisz is pure "bait with brains" (her performance could serve as the ultimate reminder NEVER NEVER NEVER to trust any woman smiling at you... God she is gorgeous, though. 'nuff said ) and Edward Burns (not my favourite actor by far, and the one I dreaded as the weak link on this outing) comes over with a surprisingly great amount of believable suave confidence... as for the supporting cast - as good as the leads, Andy Garcia takes the cake, candles and all, though ), moody soundtrack, and - just for once - in this almost "sucked-dry" genre of 'Heist' and 'Sting' movies, an unpredictable ending..... and while "confidence" breezily skips over some of the the less interesting, technical details of the sting's setup and planning (like some forgeries, research etc. ), the story stays sound - especially through Burn's off screen comments filling us in on details, attitude and his personal superstitions. Old trick, but expertly used.

And while "Confidence" invites comparison to "Oceans Eleven" with its slick production and high-end grifters, it is less swinging, ironic or hip, but rather much grittier with ugly stains poking through the peeling gloss, and somewhat less certainty about the outcome. It is really hard to tell how precisely the chips will fall in the end.

As for the story - a group of confidence men (soon to be reinforced by pickpocket Weisz ) pull-off the wrong guy, or rather they con him out of the _wrong_ money. Now, under the thumb of the local mobster (Hofmann ), they agree to trick an old enemy of said mobster out of several million bucks - and doing this with crooked cops, irritated gangsters and federal agents on their tail, and also trying to get away with some payback to various people.

Sounds simple, but like all good sting stories it has a cartload of double-dealing, backstabbing and utterly corrupt gears busily shifting and turning. Rather surprisingly for a contemporary gangster/crime story the violence, while definitely there, is neither overwhelming nor sickeningly self-serving, the camera-work is hands on, and for once the world is at its most dangerous when it looks glossy, stylish and neat.

Of course everyone missed it on the big screen while watching the Hulk, Tomb Raider 2 and Charlie's Angles : FT and cussing their hearts out - go figure. Just like the perfect con - you don't notice its excellence until it's over.

4,5 of 5 mobsters for this one

The Transporter (2002)

no way !

[2/10 · 20 June 2003]

Wow, what a terrible crash to behold... Honest - I was looking forward to this (shame on me, I know ) on the grounds that anything in the action genre produced by Luc Besson (as witnessed by "Kiss of the Dragon" and not-so-bad "Taxi" ) and featuring John Statham (of "Snatch" fame) could not be all bad.... Big mistake !!! After an admittedly cool introductory chase this is a straight and steep downhill deploying movie (Hint - leave right after it and do something else. It will save the evening !). Most treestumps have more distinguishable and varied facial expression than Mr.Statham flashes at the audience in this movie, the villains are utterly faceless styrofoam cutouts, the "plot" has holes in it the size of parking lots and some of the surprises are so hare-brained ( I mean, what villain has a packaged and primed timed-explosive-device ready for deployment, while frolicking in his gardens, just in case he needs to blow some unlucky courier to pieces if the whim takes him ? Sure.......all of them ! No comment on the Scuba-gear scene... ), I find myself mystified who would ever want screen-credits for writing it ! Even the obligatory "rousing" fight scenes are stupid, uninspired or even cool ( most baffling to me). Not even redeeming wit or self-effacing irony dare pop up... laughs crawl in by accident, only.

One of the movies that give the action-genre in general a bad name - sorry. If it wasn't for for the nice scenery and the beautiful Qi Shu ( as "Lai" - but you can buy a bunch of posters for the price of admittance) this would be a total bomb - this way it gets 1.5/5 flat tires...

The Bourne Identity (2002)

Bloodless, no sparks

[6/10 · 17 June 2003]

Finally caught up with the "Bourne Identity" tonight - a movie I had somehow missed, despite hitting the cinema like once or twice a week, year in, year out - and had definitely wanted to see in the first place, to boot...

Well in the end, it turned out, I had not missed all that much. The movie does fine in the sheer "craft" department, being edited well, suitably convincing in appearances, scenery, gadgets and secondary cast.

Yet it is also as un-innovative as they come, has less surprising plot-twists than your average Disney cartoon and a hero (Matt Damon), which one finds it hard to sympathize with at all. There is not all that much action (it takes like 30 minutes before the audience gets any sizable fight/chase ), and when it takes place, it looks harmless, artificial and strangely unsanguine. For some reason there is very little blood at all in the movie, even when some guy is shot with a shotgun, twice and is then shown in several close-up shots.... No real kicks for the viewer here - while I am not a gore hound, I found it taking the urgency out of the fights. Regretably, the bad guys are of the "utterly uninteresting" sort as well - soulless one-dimensional killers, arrogant and conceited secret-service bureaucrats and some shadowy political backers. Nothing new, nothing memorable - everything is conventional, fool-proof and has - one begins to feel with regret - been seen a thousand times before - especially the Paris scenes. Why, oh why, does every Europe-based thriller/spy movie coming out of Hollywood these days have to take place in Paris ? Dear directors, please take the hint - this makes for an inevitable comparison between masterworks or scenes at least done very well with mediocre and soulless ones - which may be yours !!!! This severely hurts "The Bourne Identity" - there already are several much better memorable car chases through Paris (e.g. Ronin, Kiss of the Dragon etc. ) and there have been more breath-taking furious fights in Paris houses and staircases, too ! The Pont Noeuf or 19th century French townhouses are not new, innovative, location, and neither are the "Quais" on the banks of the Seine, with Notre Dame in the background. Been there, seen that... a thousand times !

The fight scenes, and Matt Damon's sparring especially, are unremarkable - an utterly _bad_ thing for the main protagonist in an action movie - if we cannot root for him (or at least marvel at his prowess ), who else should catch our interest ? Why even tell his story ? His acting is defintely not going to draw us in - he walks about like some wounded puppy, only to turn into a rabid Rottweiler in the fight scenes... and back again, like a light switch thrown. Really deep acting, there. Makes it hard to sympathize with him - especially, as to the audience, it is quite obvious what he _is_ right from the start, while Mr. Bourne seems to need ages to realize, what sort of life and profession he has forgotten due to the old, trusty plot-saving device of "amnesia". Yawn ! This, and the movie's dominant moody blueish light (but this, too, has been done much more effectively before ) makes for a very cool, frigid and emotionally detached athmosphere - not bad in a spy thriller, but a weakness, if you already have to struggle for the audience's interest, due to a witless plot. Let's not forget the rather weak soundtrack, which, if used properly, might have lent some urgency or drama to the story. Again, a failure. Also, "Bourne" is as free of humour, as it is bloodless - total. Really chilling ! So chilling in fact, that any attempts at character-forming acting by Matt Damon and Franka Potente must find it impossible to involve the audience - because the audience cannot help but not to care for Mr. Bourne. Mrs Potente, btw, is hopelessly overqualified for her role's acting requirements - which makes Matt Damon's "light-switch" acting seem even more wooden and threadbare.

As a resumee - uninspired fights and chases, weak and obvious plot, uninteresting one-dimensional characters, no humour, but at least, well done handiwork on the camera and in editing.....

Well, lets hope there is no sequel to squander money on.

Equilibrium (2002)

style over hype

[9/10 · 17 June 2003]

This movie was/is much underrated - for one it gets a bunch of gripe for "stealing" ideas and concepts from other ( easily identified, making everyone feel like a very literate critic, oh my ) sources, mostly Orwell's "1984", "Fahrenheit 451" and some ideas from both "Matrix" and some "Kurosawa" movies - a nice mixture to my mind....... Of course, one has to realize/accept that most stories and plots have already been told in one way or another - even Shakespear copied his contemporaries, still he is a genius ! What matters is HOW a story is told - not the amount of hype !

Basically "Equilbrium" narrates the story of a rigid, post WW-3 Society, which keeps itself emotionally detached to prevent crime, trauma and above all _war_, both through heavy sedation ( Prozac for everyone...) and mandatory elimination of all individuality - which includes art, books, music and even simple things like colours, pets and plants..... Life is the same for everyone - deviation is punishable by execution through incineration...! These rules are enforced by the "Clerics", and elite police-unit, of which the protagonist John Preston ( Christian Bale) is among the best and stringent - until his detached dedication develops fine cracks, both through the "treason" of his erstwhile partner Partridge (kudos to a great Sean Bean ) and accidentally missing on his sedatives... From there to the final, society shaking fight it's a straight, if interestingly told development. Director Kurt Wimmer makes good use of religious motives, Orwellian paranoia and "language-distortion", allusions and some unexpected twists to both keep the movie interesting and to make his point.

And then there is the fighting..... ! The few fight-scenes (like four or five ?) are simply incredible, both in their utter simplicity and "Gun-Kata" choreography, their quick, yet viscious violence and stunning use of illumination and point of view. They are also incredible, in that, while making perfect sense in the context of the movie, they do not glorify violence in and of itself - they are cool, without actively angling to be cool, like the Matrix's action sequences. No "bullet-time" here. No flashy SFX for SFX's sake. Very japanese, Kurosawa-esque. Very un-Warchawski-brothers...... Ah ! Did I mention there is no pseudo-mystical clap-trap ? Yummy !

"Equilibrium"s style, one of its strengths IMHO, is a strong mixture of Japanese art, catholic imagery and history, "brave new world meets bright future" scenery and some apocalyptic dark-future settings. None of this is original on its own - but this particular mixture is and through its almost monochromatic style, it underscores the few important moments where light, colour and anachronistic forms enter the picture, point out a change or transition. Of course, you do notice that the movie's budget was less than that of "the Matrix" - but only if you actually watch out for it. And SFX alone do _not_ a great movie, even an action-oriented one, make.

In the end, what sets this movie apart, at least for me, and makes it worth watching again, is the simple fact, that here, besides the amazing fights, somber mood and imagery, mankind's and humanity's "great enemy" is mankind itself, meaning only too well ! No apocalyptic rise of the traitorous, inhuman machines, no alien invasion, no terrible, mind twisting disease - the "enemy" is entirely human...... Not a "deep truth", no pseudo-mystical debate, just a slight mental nudge in the right direction..... and something we ought to remember.

As for the technicalities - acting, editing and soundtrack are absolutely up to par. No real glitches, no real goofs.

Miss it at your own risk - 'nuff said.

9 out 10

The Mummy (1999)

best cliffhanger in a long time

[9/10 · 18 March 2003]

Is this shakespearian plotting and epical choices ? Not really... Is this Academy-Award worthy deep thought method-acting, drama and dialogue ? Ahem, not really either. Interesting because of its correct portraying of ancient Eqyptian culture and life ? Hardly

But - what this IS, is pure, undiluted, fast paced and witty adventure cinema at its best. Leave real world sensibilities and belief in established facts at the door, please, lean back and enjoy ! "The Mummy" is a pure cliffhanger movie (in the Indiana Jones tradition, but definitely not a cheap rip off a la "Quartermain" ), with mystic mumbling, firefights, beautiful women, terrible curses and pretty nice places to venture through ( many of these thanks to spotless CGI ), with an ancient and cursed mummy being accidentally reawakened in the 1920ies by a crew of slightly careless, if amusing archaeologist/tomb-robbers - who now have to put the bunny back into the box, or rather the mummy back into the sacrophagus.

Great panoramic shots and landscapes (making you want to jump into the next flight to Egypt) , nice - fast but not breathless - editing and a moody soundtrack provide an excellent setting. The CGI effects on the walking corpse and its special tricks are pretty decent, especially for a late 1990ies flick.The cast of (among others ) Brendan Frazer, Rachel Weisz (simply beyond comparison ), John Hannah and more or less mummified Arnold Vosloo seemed to have had a blast of a time, especially with the bantering dialogue ( simply check the memorable quotes section ) as well as personal interaction and immersing themselves into the setting.

And despite this being a "monster-horror" movie by default, the "Mummy" actually travels far more on the power of it's verbal sparring, true situational comedy and rather smart allusions to other genre favourites (like someone uttering "Bugs ? I hate bugs !" while rappelling down into an ancient Eqyptian ruin... ) then on it's appeal as a "shock-horror" flick scaring the audience witless. Call it a cliffhanger with moments of horror ( no gore, though, but some frightening concepts ) and some suspense - or better call it THE cliffhanger - IMHO this has yet to be surpassed in this genre ( yes, including IMHO the Indiana Jones triology ).

worth every cent - unless you wanted to spend the evening in miserable brooding

Eight Legged Freaks (2002)

best popcorn yet this summer

[8/10 · 15 August 2002]

Eight Legged Freaks (ELF) is _not_ shakesspearean Artistry. Neither does it have perfect Artistry in the fields of imagery, camerawork or great, epic dialogue. Admitted and put down in writing. If you absolutely want to see something in that vein, buy a ticket for the next Kurosawa movie. THIS IS POPCORN - and good one at that !

Beyond those high brow criticisms, ELF surely is one of the fastest, wittiest (wackiest, too ) and at times even scary movies to hit the screen this summer (which has been full of disappointments, sigh).

It basically is a vintage 50ies insectoid monster flick plot (lone desert town, weird accident turning local insects into frightening monstrosities...you get the drift) , told with 21st century (sometimes breathless) pace, great FX spiders (sure you can do even better, but this is not "Spiderman"), some smart (and some rather cynic) dialogue and a lot of cool moments, especially for people who are watching more than one movie a year (and therefore do actually "get" the asides ). And yes, like every good monster flick it requires some suspension of disbelief. Lets say this again - this is POPCORN !

It's not as bloody as one may fear (most violence and imaginably gross moments happen just "off-camera"), and less likely to produce sleepless nights than 'Arachnophobia', although the bodycount _is_ high, and it starts piling on fast, once the all out "arac attack" starts rolling. That's ok though, because long-term character development and intense, heart rending dialogue were left out of the script - but who expects them in a B-category monster flick, anyway ? On the other hand, you get lots of great laughs (the "catfight" is especially funny - ok, not for felinophiles, so what ?) and one can simply lean back and enjoy the ensuing mayhem and carnage in sweet Prosperity..... Expect people and spiders to die great numbers and many interesting and surprising ways.

Two minor quibbles should be noted - ELF has the minor problem of too few heroes to root for. David Arquette falls apallingly short as the "hero protagonist" - probably that's why he was affordable - while the less known Kari Wuhrer is far better ( in terms of onscreen presence and simple charisma), but does get neither enough room nor heroic opportunities. The rest of the cast simply features noone to really cheer on, either.

Second, the final "endmob" spider is IMHO simply not scary and convincing enough , not to comment on the less than exciting and slightly illogical way of her dispatching ( combustion engines.... lets repeat this once more, _combustion_ engines... frankly, some more money and script reworking should have been spend on this sequence - had it been available, it would have been, I guess ). But besides this, the movie is an utterly enjoyable treat if one does like monster movies at all . As a horror movie (which it, in all honesty, is only to people deathly afraid of spiders ) it is still better much than those abyssmal "teen-slasher" movies which have plagued us for years.

8 out 10 shotgun shells

Lilo & Stitch (2002)

a change from the pace

[7/10 · 6 June 2002]

I had the chance to see Lilo and Stitch at a "Surprise" Sneak Preview ( without prior warning ) - and laughed my head off.

This is NOT standard Disney "sweeter-than-Cotton-candy" fare - even more so than the surprisingly good "the Emperor's New Groove" it takes a rather anarchistic humour and comic hyperbole, stirs, shakes and twirls it to a new degree of potency and serves them with a flourish.

As for the story - an escaped, genetically enhanced lifeform programmed for the wholesale destruction of cities and with a keen sense of survival and cute blue fur ) escapes from its creators, its jailors and the whole of the "united-galactic-whatever" and gets stranded in............. Hawaii. Here it gets adopted/picked up by child-terror Lilo, the bane of her older sister, her playmates and the general sanity of the pacific island. On its trail - the mad alien scientist and a fumbling galactic bureaucrat concerned with the safety of the local wildlife - humans and other "sucky" species...... A perfect setting for large scale chaos, groovy scenes ( in two words - "Elvis lives" ) and much less than expected emotional, family values scenes.

As for the technical side - the animation is not especially outstanding, the backdrops at some times unbelievably "kitschy" and very little computer animation visible (though I do have some suspicions, they do not distract/jar with the conventional animation ), colours stay themed and the soundeffects are cool. Oh, did I mention, there was hardly any singing ? THERE IS HARDLY ANY SINGING ! Thanks Disney, you are finally getting the clue ! Now keep up the good work............

There is little of the "sweet and furry" and "perfect family" stuff which used to be almost a Disney trademark , but when some "touchy" scenes come deep out of left field, they are even more poignant for it. Real life problems like broken families, unemployment and child care by single parents are presented in an unobstrusive and "simplified for children" way and add motivation to the characters without dominatiing the plot. Adults will get a series of laughs out of subtle (MIB, Godzilla, Star Trek etc.) and less than subtle ( Elvis ) references, with big orgies of comic destruction and some fun science fiction gadgets helping out. Basically everyone in the theater walked out with a big and wicked grin (although they were all adults due to it being a sneak preview, I do have a fair suspicion how my six year old nephew is gonna like this movie....). This is a family movie in the best "take everyone, and have them enjoy themselves together" sense , as well as flick that one can simply go and enjoy as an adult (ok, one with a sense of anarchistic humour ).

Spider-Man (2002)

nice, but only nice

[6/10 · 6 June 2002]

Having had high expectations for this movie ( Having enjoyed the Spiderman comics without being a rabid fan ), I was rather let down by it - cries of HERESY !!!! start now .

Two reasons for this - the general pacing ( it takes almost an hour before the Hero finally gets his act together and starts swinging in earnest ) and the high amount of screentime the "talks from the heart" scenes take - especially the long and tortured talks between Spiderman(-to-be ) and MJ. Some crisp editing here could have done wonders for the whole movie. Its not really necessary to plow over the same territory repeatedly - even the daftest drunk will get the point that MJs family is broken, her boyfriend Flash is a classic idiot etc, after the first exposition - and frankly, I guess, the audience was not in the theater for a suburban sociological exploration.

Second, the longwinded (if perhaps necessary ) introduction, which IMHO could have been much more easily done with "flashbacks" - Its a long time before Peter Parker discovers his abilities, and even longer before he starts applying them creatively. Hmmmmpf - I expected more in this regard from Sam Raimi of all possible directors.

The costumes, set designs and camera work are on par, but nothing to remember as novel, impressive or breathtaking (like say, the "bullet time" sequences in Matrix ). I can live with the cybered up, armoured Green Goblin and never had a moment of disbelief seeing Peter spiderclimb up walls or swing and bounce through the streets like "Tarzan-on-speed".

On the up side, when the story takes off, the effects are brilliant, the acting by Macquire and especially William Dafoe is great to exceptional ( I only say "mirror sequence" - hats off to Mr Dafoe ), the small walk-ins from and references to the original graphic novel are well done, and there is a strange, wistful humour around. Unfortunately - only until the next overlong and sappy exposition scene ( I personally found the scenes with Aunt May especially tedious - strangely enough the women with us found the MJ scenes "stale"). Editing and pacekeeping are weak in this one, essential point. Sorry for repeating myself on this.

Not bad, but could have been way better.

6 out of 10 goblins

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

beyond every expectation

[10/10 · 25 March 2002]

First off - watch this Movie ! Its quite possible one of the three best movies of the 2001 season, and if one can stand the few scenes with some violence ( although even my sensitive girlfriend did not consider them "too bad" ), and does not need the quintessential happy end for one's satisfaction, its the best movie in a long time... That is, if one is willing to accept and watch a fantasy story at all ( and not just "Verminator 15" or whatever ), and can live with the fact, that this is only the first part of a three-piece whole (unlike Star Wars or whatever)

It's utterly terrifying (in the most positive sense )and surprising what Peter Jackson did with the voluminous book ( which could have been used to make a movie three times the current length, if he had stuck to _all_ the details like some puritstic folks demand ) - the scenery of the book fairly leaps out of the pages onto the screen, providing majestic vistas, lovely shots of the shire, some cute episodes and above all keeping to the epic mood of the books, condensing whole pages (even chapters) of description into quick, yet evocative shots and settings,

He is able of capturing essential moods with some of the key lines of the books, yet cutting back on several of the long conversations, outlining the shire, the elves and even the dark enemy within the first few scenes and establishing the whole frame of Middleearth within minutes ! At the same time he is adding the huge canvas on which to paint his telling of Tolkien's story. Yes, Peter Jackson had to cut some "classic" scenes from the books (and fans of the will gripe and gripe and the moan some about it) yet those scenes were cut to make the movie/story more accessible to a wider audience, not to diminish the pleasure of some fanatic adherents of the "Original". Live with it - basically some of the scenes cut I found nice, even if more than merely superfluent, in the book (of which I am an unabashed fan ). This is helped by excellent camerawork and editing, as well as a moody soundtrack. And I guess, he did actually film the sequences, and we get to see them on the DVD edition, possibly extending the movie into a truly epic 4+ hours...

As for the acting - well, I can accept Eliah Wood as Frodo (and he is nicely a-breed-apart from his fellow "countryfolk" hobbits), Ian Holm as Bilbo is extraordinary, and the same holds true for Ian McClellan - if he should get the 'Oscar' for it, it would be well deserved indeed. The only problem for me was Hugo Weaving as Elrond - not that his acting wasn#t up to par, but rather his distinctive face screamed "ahhh the 'Matrix' villain " at me the second he came on screen. Oh well... The rest of the cast is solid to superior in their performance, although Sean Bean is sadly underused - what a great Aragorn he could have been, but Vigo Mortensen fills the spot well enough, too. The small roles played by the few other "names" in the cast (Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett...) add some flavour and hint at those characters importance, yet do not detract from the storyline - this is first and foremost a plot based movie, not a star vehicle ! Anyone going to view LOTR simply because someone particular is acting in it....oh well.

LOTR's "star" is the incredible richness of the story, the athmosphere (which is a far far shot from anything else marketing itself under and the "fantasy" label) and the detailed and deep setting - not any hired Hollywood talent. Witness the FX-shots inside Moria, the huge statues flanking the Anduin falls, Isengard ( especially the underground shots ), the high pass sequence or Barad Dur, the Iron Tower. Or the "spirit world" sequences, or or or.....

Lean back and enjoy - nothing less is delivered, no more could have been asked. Its a miracle that Mr. Jackson could transfer the richness of the book onto the screen at all - that he succeeded so above everyone's expectations is a tribute to his skill.

9.5 out of 10 hobbits

PS - for those considering the film "sexless" and "unromantic" - Not every great story needs some heavyhanded, breathless bedroom action to catch the audience interest and imagination. As for the "Arwen" part - IMHO Liv Tyler was not enrolled to provide some "female flesh" but to combine several people from the books into one readily recognicable character..., Yes, for broader acceptance, too, I guess. So what ? Guess someone is going to gripe that Peter Jackson did not hire some real hobbits either..............

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

please, Noooooooo !

[4/10 · 1 July 2001]

As for starters, I DO like action movies per se, and I am not partial to female leads in action movies - then again, Tomb Raider makes me want to rescind that... Saw it yesterday and still wish I could get a refund, even after a couple of beers and a good night's sleep....

Tomb Raider has a pathetic( "weak" would be a compliment !) plot, an even more pathetic villain, extremely uninteresting sidekicks ( both good and bad ones) except for a butler named "Hillary", which, by the way, is one of the few intended working laughs in this movie. The rest of the jokes were either unintentional or backfired miserably. As for Miss Croft, ahem Miss Jolie, she makes me wish they had simply put in the animation from the Video Game instead of hiring her for the part, the CGI animation would likely have put up a better acting performance, been cheaper and might have projected more charisma if not for miss Jolie's, admittedly attractive, looks. Oh yes, the setting/backgrounds were nice, as was most of the camerawork, but pretty pictures alone do not a good movie make. The dialogues are beyond trite, lame and not funny and all, and most jarring for an action movie, there are a coupe of overly long and intensely sentimental scenes regarding Lara and her father. Lets be honest, if Tomb Raider would not have had a massive amount of PR hype and high expectations running on it, it would not have made the screen, except as a "B" category release, or sunk soundlessly in the second week it was shown. Well, as a major Video Game spin off, we are likely to suffer a second and third part.....Ouch !

The Mummy Returns (2001)

Something different

[7/10 · 10 June 2001]

Saw the first "Mummy" and loved it. Even gave it 9 out of 10 points. Saw it three times. Bought the DVD. Went To Egypt. Started robbing Tombs...

The Mummy Returns (M2) is different, a nice sequel if a slightly weaker. While "The Mummy" was an "adventurers stumble across terrific ancient curse" movie in the tradition of Indiana Jones ( and a good one at that !), "The Mummy Returns" is more of a "free for all adventure extravanganza". No real secrets or mysteries, little suspense or plot twists, huge amounts of supernatural ( read ILM ) fireworks.

To be precise - while M1 built up the supernatural side of the story slowly and very deliberately over the first hour, increasing the sense of mystery and the audience's expectation to good effect, M2 hits the viewer full in the face within the first 10 minutes. Soldier mummies on speed, undead warriors of Anubis, huge ILM-animated battles and deadly trap-riddled tombs abound - after this the pace only increases only a little and tries to keep the audience glued to their seats for the remaining 2 hours from the sensory overkill from the beginning of the story. Almost all the mystery and supernatural effects are introduced in the initial onslaught, and what remains is reserved for the final 30 minutes ( except for the ultra-cool "Mygmies", who get far too little time and exposure, IMHO ) which again is furious, breath taking and entirely "over the top". The "time shift" scenes, as well as the airship sequence do not offer anything great or original, but are nice eye-candy. The plot is not all that unique either. Still, its likable.

The smart, poignant dialogues and character interactions which made "The Mummy" special, unfortunately are far rarer and less witty, and what remains of it requires a good working knowledge of "The Mummy" to really enjoy. Also, there is no real villain for the viewer to hate, dislike or fear like slimy "Benny" from the first part or the mummy Imhotep himself who never seems really terrifying or threatening throughout the movie and the "Ultimate Evil" Scorpion king remains a plot device straight out of the script ("look, the wicked archfiend !"), a major mistake in my book. Heroes need great villains to shine.

As for the cast, the character development of the protagonists from "The Mummy" is notable and plausible (in my book), if not spectacular, the acting solid ( especially John Hannah ) with the single noteworthy exception of Patricia Velasquez. As for her, great looks do not great actors make.... sorry most of the statues and background scenery deliver a better mimic performance ! 'nuff said !

Overall, its an enjoyable movie and I expect much weaker offings this summer, but "The Mummy Returns" would, on its own merits that is, not fly very far or successfully. One really need to have seen "The Mummy" to fully enjoy the second part.....

7 out of 10 pyramids for this one

The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

Dark Adventure - no more, no less..

[9/10 · 23 March 2001]

For starters - all the people who found the story unbelievable, just read up on it, then stop blathering.... Sometimes history makes up a story far weirder than anything some third-rate Hollywood author could write up. Just the way it is, lets face it.

The story gives adequate information for the reasons of the main characters to be there, their relevant motivations and the times they live in. No more, no less. Still, one should remember that this is a movie about the menace of two lions, not about planting coffee in Africa, an emotional drama before a beautiful backdrop or the exploration of the dark depths of the human character. If that's what you are looking for, sorry, its the wrong movie ! Go watch Woodie Allen pieces ( which have their place and time ) !

As for the movie, great photography, impressive settings , adequate to great actors ( I am not a great Val Kilmer fan myself, but he fills the Col. Patterson part just fine )and a very good soundtrack. Actually, the sheer natural beauty and the exotic location make the unfolding horror of the lions stalking and butchering the railroad workers, sidekicks and protagonists alike even more menacing than it would be on sunny US-shores (as in Jaws ) - something dark, primal and unknown enters the story with their first killing, something that seems as much a natural part of the location as the incredible beauty of the land. It never gets explained with some bogus 'McGuffin', it just exists ( no radiation/toxic hazard, whatsoever nonsense ). Two maneating, clever and aberrant lions. Should do....

Compared to 'Jaws', and its many terrible ripoffs, copycats and look-alikes, this is the far superior movie - better even than 'Jaws' ( which was innovative, though, and which I like ) due to its skillful crafting, building of a menacing presence and less reliance on sudden shocks to get the audience's interest. You always know the lions are stalking the camp, you just do not know where, how and when they will strike. There is no easy safety on shore , which I find much more entertaining and interesting than being 'shock-awakened' by some blaring soundeffects and sudden gore and splattering - actually much of the violence here is off-camera or alleged too, and while there is a lot of blood in some scenes, you rarely if ever see its actual shedding. While I like it, this might not appeal to the gore-hounds though , I presume.

In the end 'The Ghost And The Darkness' combines two genres, the "great adventure" story, and the "stalking monster" plot, forging both into a greater, very engrossing whole. I give it 8,5 out of 10 for sheer entertainment value. And as for many 'critics', I guess there were just not enough scantily clad, busty females (preferably helpless, blonde and screaming ) and too little predictability about the next victim in this movie for their taste.....

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

Great, once past the accents.

[9/10 · 19 February 2001]

First off, I heard no hype about this movie, just got handed the DVD by a friend with a short 'Watch it'. Big thanks to him ! Its probably also why I enjoyed LSTSB immensely, repeatedly and unashamedly. It's basically all the things Tarantino aims for ( and sometimes even hits ), gritty, tough-but-humourous and entertaining from the outset. Less hype, but much better delivery all around !

The cast of protagonists, villains and even the sidekicks is truly memorable while satisfyingly 'fresh', and thanks be to the higher powers, Mr. Travolta does not dance ! Also, avid fans of Sting should not hold their breath in anticipation, his 3 minutes of fame are more than enough. And yes, the plot is slightly complicated, with some flashbacks, humour, at its blackest parallel storylines and unexpected twists, but so is life.... Its actually necessary to listen to the dialogue full-time to get all the good ones and anyone not enjoying it should consider having his brainpan checked out for dryrot, ASAP(or watch 'Mary Poppins').

The plot itself is neither overly brutal( while deadly !), nor clicheed, but a well-constructed, fast-paced treat, and one could only wish that more scriptwriters where as circumspect in plotting for a memorable show-down. The same goes for the soundtrack.

As for those 'critics' claiming that LSTSB ripped off 'Holy Tarantino' who BTW shamelessly ripped off everybody else, and recently failed miserably, even with a decent script to work from - just check out 'Jackie Brown') I should point out that anyone who builds something similar, yet definitely bigger and better, does not 'rip off', he improves ! Sorry that Mr Ritchie is a Brit, and , 'oh terrible woe' the boyfriend of trite Madonna, but, lets face it, this movie is much better value than 'Pulp fiction' or 'Reservoir Dogs'.

There are only two potentially troublesome points to be kept in mind - first off the sometimes videoclip-like aesthetics ( hard on the eyes) , and second, the extremely thick accents ( which in themselves are wickedly funny, just hard to get ), which baffle the even the non-hearing-impaired ( but then again, so does Morgan Freeman, and he even got an Oscar for it...), and I expect, may be challenging for many Americans and non-english speakers alike.

Besides this, a great movie ( and if it had been done by Q.Tarantino, a lot less people would gripe unfairly about it.... ) !

9/10

The Perfect Storm (2000)

not perfect enough...

[7/10 · 21 July 2000]

Saw the movie last night, after having had great expectations about it for weeks. With Wolfgang Petersen directing, a humongous 120 million dollar budget, a well stuffed quiver of stars - how could it possibly miss ?

It did, though not by much.... While the plot is simple (not in itself a fault ) and everybody knows the eventual outcome, the film still manages to get off the ground and take the audience along well enough. Both the introduction of the crew, their background and motivations, as well as the pressures of home, job and aspirations are done smoothly, expertly and not overly tearful. Kudos to Mr. Petersen for that !

When the 'Andrea Gail' finally leaves the harbour for her fateful voyage, one -does- understand why the fishermen sail forth for 'one final haul' - and one knows for certain that they understand the dangers involved, and go nevertheless. Overall, the film never fails on this count, neither does it on athmosphere or depicting the gritty, all-male, environment of the swordboat. The build up of tension which follows is expertly done until the sinking, although the yachting trip (which is a secondary subplot) is quite clichee and stereotypical - but prepares the far more interesting story of the rescue helicopter' struggle and plight. So far so good.

The big letdowns are the storm itself - despite million of dollars in CGIs and superior sound hardware in the cinema, it never feels real, present or solid. Having sailed in some pretty rough weather myself might have contributed, but overall the atlantic storm, waves and spray in Petersen's own 'Das Boot' of 1980(!) are far more intense, real and convincing then the'Perfect Storm' of 2000. Especially during the daylight scenes one just felt that this wasn't 'real', but just some fancy, expensive animation. There never - except for those scenes actually shot on the shore in Maine - is any perceptible presence of the wind, its sheer orcanic force and gusts or the might and dread of an onrushing wave. Petersen seems to have realized this shortcoming - there are a vast number of close-up shots of Clooney and Wahlberg to compensate for it, and the actors labour to convey the tension, respect and later, dread they feel, but there are only a few shots of the tossing sea around the 'Andrea Gail' in all its supposedly terrible fury. So the audience gets the strange impression, that while the Coast Guard ship and the rescue helicopter seem to be in dire straits, the 'Andrea Gail' seems to encounter only minor 'difficulty' in weathering the storm - besides some inevitable action-themed complications.

I personally have never in my entire life seen (or thought possible) as many men swept overboard a steaming, pitching, rocking boat by waves/whatever, without lifevests, dry suits or other equipment, in full encumbering gear, boots and sweaters and still be rescued, especially smack in the middle of 'the storm of the century'!

As for that final monstrous, ship devouring wave - well, who is to judge upon its appearance ? Nevertheless, to me, it looked like it sneaked out of 'Deep Impact' for a quick cameo appearance..... As for critics claiming they got 'seasick' watching its 'realism', I guess it must have been the Nachos with that double side-order of cheese!

Still, overall its a pretty wild ride, and solid entertainment is delivered. What really ruins part of the 'Storm' for me are the two 'Titanic'scripted scenes with Mr. Wahlberg, which I couldn't care less for, and the overly tearful, sentimentalist and weepy epilogue, which is truly nerve-grating.

At least half the audience (and not only the male part, mind you) started to groan in agony when one lengthy eulogy for the crew after another got delivered - not to slighten Mrs. Mastrantonio's talent, but it gets sadly wasted this way.

On a general note, the soundtrack does get slightly monotonous after a while, while the cast performs uniformly well. What faults there are with the movie aren't theirs, but the scripts and CGIs, and IMHO, and much of the likely success/appeal of the film lies with George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Without them, it would sink even faster than the 'Gail' - with them it stands a fair chance of steaming home. As I said - it misses, though not by as much as others this summer. 6.5 out of 10 fishermen for me.

Wind (I) (1992)

to yacht or not to yacht

[8/10 · 15 July 2000]

One thing is for certain - you will either hate this film, especially if you can't stand the sea, boats and wind, or, if you like any of these, especially if you like _all_ of them, you will love it. Admittedly it has a simple, proven plot, gives short shrift to the history of the America's Cup and features a rather non-describt cast - but the film does have superior and imaginative cinematography, impeccable editing and a marvelous soundtrack, as well as a slow, but steady build-up of drama. To my knowledge there is no other film that even comes as close as this movie to capture the feeling, tension and athmosphere of offshore competitive racing. It deals with an unconventional, off-beat setting and theme - go, see/rent/buy it if you can stand that.............

U-571 (2000)

Neither entertaining nor good !

[2/10 · 10 May 2000]

I am admittedly a fan of submarine-warfare movies and books, and will alos admit to overlooking some factual 'inaccuracies' as long as the plot gets furthered by them. As for 'U-571' - If you honestly want to see a submarine move, pick another ! This flick is far to clean shaven, scrubbed and streamlined to even remotely resemble real life and duty on a submarine, even under preent day conditions. Watch "The Boat" instead especially the director's cut, for an impression of 'life' on a submarine.

As for historical 'accuraccy' - It has been mentioned before that the Polish, French and English secret services originally 'accquired' the Enigma machine during the thirties - and by '41 were regularly reading the U-boat dispatches ( with corresponding massive effect on the naval war) - rendering the basic premise of the movie void from the start......

As for the uninspired acting - actually nothing much was expected, so the disappointment was managable......

Stil, it might be fun watching it as a total no-brainer zoned out with a cask of beer. Then again, there are more memorable movies ! Leave it be

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

more laughs than horror

[8/10 · 26 February 2000]

I have to admit, I am not actually a big fan of Tim Burton. but..... this movie is far better than I expected.

First of all, it is as stylishly throughout and with some nice, grotesque teasers ( Icabud Crane's "surgery" implements seem to have come right from the 'Edward Scissorhands' set ) and very consequent camerawork, both with regard to lighting, viewing angles, cuts and a deliberately limited palette of colours used, as one has come to expect of Burton, whatever else his directing shortcomings ( if any) may be. Visually it is an all too rare treat of shadows and pale, misty light, giving it a chilly and menacing atmosphere. This is almost worth the ticket on its own.

The story itself though is far more comedy ( and some suspense) than horror - there is little gore ( some bouncing heads, some beheaded corpses and some blood spurting from off-camera are the upper limits - slasher-movie types need not apply....), very little shock ( The - btw excellent - soundtrack usually gives ample advance warning ) and nothing ultimately disgusting. There are some slightly unsettling and eerie flashbacks, giving a little depth to CraneÄs obsession with science over 'mere' belief. As to the nature of the horror though, there is little question, and only the motive for its appearance, while eluded too quite early in the film, stays unknown for any amount of time. Any horrific transformation of the characters ? De nada, senor !

So folks, lets face it, it's NOT a horror movie ( unless ones DOES regard 'X-files' as horror.... ), merely ghostly suspense, with, perhaps its single fault, an overdose of relieving humour. There is quite a lot of comically grotesque scenes which will make the viewer laugh - typical for Burton's films, but not really (?) appropriate in a spooky and dark ghost story.

Its a clichee-rich story, too - spooky witches, cursed woods, innocent pale girls, frigid stepmothers, Jack O'Lanterns and cornfields, as well as black stagecoaches all have their turns. Actually, that is the most disappointing part of the film, as there are very little innovative details in the telling and 'painting' the darkness of the tale.

The cast is a superior one, Depp and Ricci giving able, if not really inspired performances, Christopher Walken having a few short, but very impressive scenes and several well known faces turning up in supportive roles - even Christopher Lee 'dropping-in' in a cameo, so no quibbles on that count.

Actually I liked the film very much - just do not expect it to be a 'horror' film - suspense with some mystical overtones and a good, hearty laugh at some blackish humour is much more appropriate as a description. 8 out of 10 should give you an idea as to its quality.......

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)

quite atypical Jim Jarmush movie

[8/10 · 20 February 2000]

Having seen several Jim Jarmush filmsover the past dozen of years, I was silghtly ( some more action oriented friends had 'warned' me about it...) surprised by Ghost Dog. It does have many of Jarmush typical bemused observation of the human being but at the same time has a hard-edged, unsentimental and at times ruthless plot, which one does not expect. My kudos with regard to that - for once the viewer's interest in the movie is not solely reliant on the amusement and thoughtful observation of the next scene or episode ( yes those do appear to - just wait for the icecream-salesman......)

The shooting and imagery _is_ very good and atmospheric, especially some motion blurs and perspective tricks used, as is the very deliberately ( IMO ) chosen decor and background. Also some slowly developing setups for scenes are simply priceless, and just seem to creep up into one's memory again and again. This is really on of the movies strengths.....

As for the acting, Forest Whittaker excels as the silent, brooding and honourbound (oh, and of course fashionably black-clad, just which killer nowadays isn't ?) protagonist (and nothing less was expected of him ), who seeks his purpose and thereby perfection in his existence through devotion to a possibly outmoded system of belief and ethics, although, as far as I can judge it ( having actually read my share about Bushido and samurai ethics and believes) , his code of bushido is a much mangled, spliced together and edited version of the original. But then, we do have 'literary freedom'( which does permit mangling the facts), and it serves its cinematic purpose, especially through the visible clash between the discipline, softspoken and polite ways of samurai believes and the public image of contemporary Afro-American urban male youths.....

The remainder of the cast stay pretty one-dimensional and stereotypical though - especially the mobsters fall into the oft-repeated mold of spaghetti slinging, fat, halfwit and moronic inbreeds. Gosh, what brilliantly new concept - I just don't see it fitting reality, I guess organized crime these days is much smarter, sleeker and far less in love with cartoons ! So even Jarmush is not above using old, tired clichees anymore.......... Sad ! Still, definitely worth seeing, if unbroken, heedless action is not a requirement in a movie about a professional assassin.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

great twisted tale

[10/10 · 1 January 2000]

Probably one of the best and most innovative movies of the '90s - both from a cinematic angle and storywise. Yes it is based on a script by Tarantino and directed by Robert Rodriguez, both not easily accepted as 'high-art' directors and by the Academy. Who cares ? Just ask yourself as to how many times since Hitchcock's 'Psycho' has one seen a plot jerk as unexpectedly into a totally different vein as in this movie. For those who complain that a gritty gangster story suddenly turns into a fantastic horror saloon brawl - that is exactly what makes this movie so good. Its unexpected, catches you on the wrong foot, and rearranges all the set constellations from the first part of the movie. What else ? Great, tense and very memorable dialogues, eye-catching locations ( I just keep spotting new details in the Titty Twister every time I watch the movie ) and some fine acting ( yes, even Juliette Lewis. One does hardly ever have to gripe about Harvey Keitel, George Clooney or Cheech Marin. Tarantino himself is just looney.... And Salma Hayek is one sexy mistress of the night).

Good music score, too - it greatly helps conveying the mood and speed of the individual scenes, without becoming bombastic or boring. Same about the camera work, including the flashbacks/hallucinations incurred by Tarantino's character, points of view for a lot of shots and the cutting.

And even if you don't care about the incredible handiwork - it's just roaringly funny and dead-pan (check the quotes section !). Just be warned, that it is not meant for the easily insulted, sensitive and romantically inclined crowd - one has to be able to stand the gore, fantastic/horror aspects ( a friend of mine never got over the fact, that 'vampires' suddenly showed up in a 'gangster'-movie ) rough language and several crude jokes, so any artsy fans of Harvey Keitel will probably get the shock of their lives . Everybody will just enjoy it !

' nuff said - go see it !