roland-spindler Reviews

Dazed and Confused (1993)

Shoot the messenger

[3/10 · 10 July 2012]

Giving this movie a bad rating feels a bit like shooting the messenger, but I cannot remember a movie that made me more angry since - well, ever. Is this an accurate depiction of American high school life in the 70s? I am from Europe and I was born the year this movie is set in, so I couldn't tell.

What I do know is that hurting and humiliating someone who is weaker than you is wrong. Doing it just because you can and because this is supposed to be fun is even worse. In this movie violence for fun is the basic premise of the plot. I could live with that, if it were shown in a reflective and discerning fashion. This is not the case. Everyone from the teachers to the parents to the seniors and even to the freshmen accepts and embraces this culture of violence. The movie makers do not convey disagreement with those practices, therefore in the best case they feel indifferent to it. The only ones who choose to refrain from violence are the nerds, but they are depicted cowardly, not courageous.

I couldn't help but think of scenes from several holocaust movies I've seen. There are people hurting and humiliating others just because they can and because it makes from feel strong. However, in movies like Schindler's List or The Pianist the inequity is obvious to the viewer. In Dazed and Confused it is not. It's just a couple of kids having fun, right? Right?

The Princess Bride (1987)

Disappointing - especially for a Top 250 movie

[6/10 · 4 January 2012]

As I'm writing this, The Princess Bride is ranked 194 in the IMDb Top 250 list with an average rating of 8.1. Considering the rating and the fact that I love fantasy, I had high expectations. Long story short - I was very disappointed.

It's not that The Princess Bride is bad. It has its moments and a unique kind of humor. But the overall impression is lackluster at best. The plot is thin, the acting is sub-par, the main characters nothing but clichés and the special effects are barely worth a laugh. Just look at those guys it rat costumes. Is that supposed to be frightening or hilarious?

To mention a few good points, the minor characters of Inigo Montoya and Fezzik are very good. Also the cuts between the plot and the frame narrative about a grandfather and his grandson are pleasantly surprising. On the other hand, the frame narrative itself is unnecessary and only exists to provide the beginning and the ending that the plot is missing.

Why do one third of the viewers rate this 10? According to my wife, she loved the movie as a kid, but was disappointed too when she saw it recently. I guess it just did not mature well.

REC (2007)

Nothing new, but good nonetheless

[7/10 · 19 October 2011]

Everything in this movies comes from somewhere else. The camera style from Blair Witch Project, the plot from 28 Days Later, and the finale from The Silence of the Lambs.

The special effects are minimalistic and serviceable at best. The acting is acceptable, but not great. The movie is a bit on the short side - after 70 minutes the credits start rolling.

Despite all those problems the movie is enjoyable and captivating. Watching it on the stationary bike was one of the few times where I spent more time exercising than usual - simply because I forgot to check the time.

Clone or homage? Who cares! Strongly recommended, especially for horror fans.

In 3 Tagen bist du tot 2 (2008)

A Rare Case

[7/10 · 23 August 2011]

A rare case of the sequel surpassing the original.

Admittedly - in this case this was not too hard. "In 3 Tagen bist du tot" was a formulaic teenie slasher that only genre fans will find entertaining. Part 2 however is a completely different animal. It is not a rehash of the same plot. Part 1 merely provides the back story for part 2 to unfold a gripping suspense thriller.

It's not Shakespeare, mind you. The story is not exactly intellectual and you still have all the classic horror shock effects and lots and lots of gore. On the other hand the setting is so down-to-earth that it becomes almost believable at times.

The final half hour is what transforms this movie from "good sequel" to "really good movie". A horror movie usually makes you guess who the bad guy is. This one makes you doubt who the good guy is. Terrific! If you liked part 1, then definitely check out this one. If you did not like part 1, still check out this one. The only excuse I'll accept is that you don't like horror at all.

X: First Class (2011)

X-Men meet Dr. No

[8/10 · 24 June 2011]

The first two X-Men movies set a new standard for comic adaptation. After that there was a noticeable drop in quality. The most recent movie - X-Men Origins Wolverine - was only saved by Hugh Jackman's performance. Everything else was forgettable.

Luckily, X-Men First Class takes the series back to its original glory. As a prequel the movie is set during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Charles Xavier is about to become professor and Eric Lehnsherr is hunting down the Nazis who killed his family and especially his personal nemesis Sebastian Shaw.

Sure, not everything is perfect about this movie. Those who have a deeper knowledge about the Cuban Missile Crisis will notice many historic flaws. (Hint: Watch "Thirteen Days" or even better: "The Fog of War".) Then there are several continuity mistakes between the new movie and the old ones. (In the first movie, Xavier said that he met Eric at the age of 17. Now they are both much older. Also there is a big mistake that has to do with the 70s scene in the third movie, but I can't tell without providing a spoiler.) Some of the minor characters have very thin personalities. Also, the young Beast looks more cuddly than scary.

But who wants to argue about such minor details? When Kevin Bacon as super villain Shaw walks through his nuclear submarine surrounded by a freak show of henchmen, even Dr. No and Blofeld will pale in comparison. Without reaching a parody level like Austin Powers, we get a perfect representation of a 60s movie villain.

I also love the cameos of some original cast members, but I won't give those away.

More of the good stuff that worked, a fresh breeze of new stuff (60s nostalgia, historic background) and great acting especially by Fassbender and Bacon. X-Men reinvents itself without abandoning its root. What's not to love?

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

How to dismantle a great movie

[7/10 · 25 May 2011]

I spent the better part of this movie in awe, thinking this was the best war movie I'd ever seen. There are no heroes or villains on both sides. Just poor men trying to stay alive.

The Americans have faces, the enemies have faces. Compare this to a movie like Top Gun for example: You never see the enemies' faces. Therefore they must be evil, right?

The whole idea collapsed like a house of cards at the end. Suddenly the Americans turned to heroes and the enemies turned to villains. I still don't understand why they did that.

This movie could have been great. The way it is - it's merely good.

Enemy of the State (1998)

More holes that Swiss cheese

[3/10 · 25 May 2011]

Let me make one thing clear: I don't mind a movie being unrealistic. I love movies that contain science fiction elements, magic and other supernatural stuff.

But.

This is not a supernatural thriller. It's supposed to be a high tech thriller. It's supposed to show us what could happen to an innocent man who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Simply put - it doesn't do that.

Watching it I felt like observing a magician as he puts a rabbit into a hat, only to reveal it a few seconds later shouting 'Ta-daaaaa!'.

Apart from several minor plot holes, those are the three things that made me turn away in disgust the most:

1) One man accidentally films a crime with a movie camera. The bad guys kill him right away. He sent a copy to a friend of his before he died. The bad guys kill him right away. The friend gave the copy to our hero - Will Smith's character - before he died. The bad guys... What? They try to damage his reputation? Why?!

2) When the friend gave the copy to our hero, the scene was caught by a store surveillance camera. This is just a plain, ordinary camera. Yet the bad guys manage to turn the image in some magical way to see what was hidden behind the back of our hero. Some tech indeed.

3) Some bad guys disguised as cops try to search our hero's flat. He tells them: 'Not without a search warrant.' Another bad guy listening in on the scene, stroke with awe, says: 'Damn, he's good.' Ahem. An American five year old knows that the police needs a search warrant. Our hero is a lawyer! But... 'Damn, he's good...'

Let's see... 8 stars for the story idea and the style of the movie. -2 for the plot. Makes an average of 3. Stills seems a bit too much though...

Rear Window (1954)

What's big, grey, and has two tusks?

[9/10 · 11 January 2009]

What's big, grey, and has two tusks? - You'll see at the end of this comment. Warning: Contains spoiler!

Rear Window is one of Hitchcock's best known pictures - and probably rightful so. Everything from camera-work to editing in each and every scene is simply brilliant. Also the acting is great, not only by Stewart, but down to every supporting character. However, what really annoyed me and what kept me from giving a top-notch vote is the script.

Not far into the movie we are made to believe that the neighbour killed his wife. Every scene that follows enforces this point. And what do we find out in the end? Guess what...

So, what's big, grey, and has two tusks? - An elephant!

Feeling a bit let down? Well, so did I.