mooviesuniverse Reviews

Niet Schieten (2018)

Don't Shoot, That's my dad!

[9/10 · 14 October 2018]

These words still resonate days after I've watched this film. It's the first one in it's kind that addresses a dark page in Belgian history, you know the hellhole/Chocolate factory.

This takes us back to the mid 80's when a local gang committed several robberies on supermarkets, all with excessive violence and low loot. This 'Gang of Nijvel' always made a lot of casualties with military grade weaponry and precision.

Storywise this focuses on one family and their pain as they are all gunned down except the little boy who survives after he witnessed the murder of his entire family. A this is a true story, this is also very real as this person is still alive today and fighting against all odds to get it solved.

The movie does a great job in recreating these events and you can't help to cry a couple of times to the injustice in the investigation. You really feel the pain of the lead characters. Stijn Coninckx is truly our greatest director and once again he proves his worth in the shooting of this terrible tragedy.

Main lead is Jan Decleir, our greatest actor, and does a fine job as the grandfather who takes care of his grandson after the murders. Jonas Van Geel however does a terrible job as the grandson, he is a comedian and not suited for a drama role. Terrible miscast and the only downside in the best Flemish movie of the year(s).

Conspiracy has always surrounded the dossier, the movie also shines a light on the several 'errors' in the investigation and the lack of goodwill to solve it. Since the tragedy the police has been rearmed with better material and a political drama was in the making. It seems there is some truth in this and that there were greater powers at work to destabilize our country. The movie doesn't end in a closure as it's still not solved.

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

Solo lacks soul

[5/10 · 27 July 2018]

The latest installment in the Star Wars Universe takes us to the streets of Corellia where a young Han (Alden Ehrenreich) and his girlfriend Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke) plan to make a daring escape to a better life. It's the starting point of an overlong action-packed adventure.

It's no secret that the production suffered some difficulties. Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were fired, Ron Howard was hired and they had to reshoot almost the entire movie which made it very expensive. Unfortunately the end result is quite underwhelming.

After episodes 7 & 8 (and 'Rogue One') the nostalgic effect starts to wear off and then there's not much there really. There's no big plot and no tension whatsoever. The movie falls short as an origin story simply because we don't find out an awful lot about Han Solo that we didn't know already. The movie starts promising on Corellia but what could have been a Blade Runner like setting is a messy, too dimly lit world led by a weird fish lady. The fishwoman is one of many forgettable characters. The action sequences look good (especially the train robbery) but not mind blowing either.

The big question is of course the performance of Ehrenreich. He does an admirable job. Although his Han is too much of a good guy for our liking he's still young and the cynicism probably comes later. He's not Harrison Ford but you can't hold that against him. Woody Harrelson (Beckett) and Paul Bettany (Dryden Vos) do their job but nothing special. Emilia Clarke isn't really convincing. Donald Glover however stands out as Lando Calrisssian. Glover oozes charisma and is everyting you want Lando to be.

There are few certainties in life but one of them is that the music in Star Wars is always great. It's no different here. John Powell provides perhaps the best score out of the "new" Star Wars movies.

The surprising ending will leave some in shock/awe, others confused. All in all it's a pretty entertaining action flick. Nothing more. As a Star Wars movie that's not enough.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Stones R Us

[8/10 · 25 April 2018]

The Intergalactic Dance Off begins! A spoiler free review will grant us the favor of the great hero Kevin Bacon from Footloose.

Thanos, The Mad Titan, wants to take care of business and collect the Infinity Stones on his cool golden glove. With these stones he will be able to decimate the Galaxy and bring forth a 'galactic reset' with a lot less people in it. Up to our Mightiest Heroes and friends to team up and stop him but do they succeed? This Part 1 of the conclusion picks up where the post-credit scène of Thor: Ragnarok(2017) left us. Thanos makes first contact and makes sure we know why he's the ultimate villain. As of this point we get the usual mix of action; humor and pretty scenery that are the trademark of a Marvel Universe-movie. Why should you see this? It's a thrill ride to see the conclusion of a decade worth of movies, your favorite neighborhood heroes and the best Marvel villain yet. Thanos' motives are explored so he's not just the 'superevil dude' but gets a 'likeable' background.

Why should you skip this? 2,5 hours without break is a brutal evening. I'm afraid a rewatch would lead to boring bits so they should have cut some stuff out. If you have not seen the other films, make sure you do so that you get all the characters and easter eggs. You could be growing tired of the Marvel Universe, one of us had this feeling with Black Panther(2018).

Avengers Assemble!

Gangsta (2018)

Style over substance

[6/10 · 30 January 2018]

'Gangsta' tells the tale of four friends who are out to make a quick buck. What better way than to deal coke in Antwerp, Belgium, the so-called coke capital of Europe. In doing so the four dealers trigger a war between them, two Amsterdam drug lords and a Colombian cartel.

Adamo (Matteo Simoni), the main character and his three buddies look and behave like gangsters but are far from it. To them their new way of making fast money is a fantasy and that's what directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah want to make you feel. They glorify the whole gangster life and it shines through in the distinctive look of the film. It's a different take on the classic gangster movies but that doesn't mean it's better. While 'Scarface' is being referenced a couple of times the movie has more in common with Michael Bay's 'Pain & Gain'.

It all looks and sounds flashy but there's little underneath that shiny surface. The plot is rather simple and the characters are flat and sometimes downright annoying. The directors pull all sorts of tricks (visual and with the narrative) to blow you away but eventually it's overkill. El Arbi and Fallah have shown with their two previous movies ('Image' and 'Black') that they're capable of making dark gritty movies. I get that they want to show that they have more up their sleeve (the duo wants to break through in the US) but sometimes less is more. Take away half an hour of the runtime and it would have been easier to digest.

Although all the blitz and glam can't hide the shortcomings of the movie it's still quite a fun ride. I can see it doing well among youngsters.

Kudos to Matteo Simoni who really shines as Adamo. Simoni who is known more for his comedy parts in Belgium is quite impressive. Debuting Nora Gharib is a gem and Dutch rapper Ali B is a great addition as the twisted Hassan Kamikaze.

The Snowman (2017)

'The Snowman' is a promising project on paper but turns out to be a huge dud on the screen

[4/10 · 17 December 2017]

After a woman disappears, detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender) receives an ominous note. He teams up with young recruit Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson) to solve the mystery.

The movie, produced by Martin Scorsese, is an adaptation of the bestselling novel by Jo Nesbo. Tomas Alfredson is in the director's seat, Thelma Schoonmaker came on board to edit and you have an international cast led by Michael Fassbender. If you take a look at the names involved this movie should have been a home run. It wasn't.

Alfredson who has proven he's capable of making good movies ('Let the right one in', 'Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy'), fails miserably. The reason as to why it went so wrong is as puzzling as the movie itself. Apparently Alfredson was quoted as saying: "Our shoot time in Norway was way too short, we didn't get the whole story with us and when we started cutting we discovered that a lot was missing." That of course explains a lot. Furthermore according to the director 15% of the screenplay was never filmed. Too bad that was the 15% containing all the tension and thrills because watching 'The Snowman' is about as interesting as watching a snowman melt.

Fassbender tries to save what is left but there's very little to his character. A brilliant detective with an alcohol problem. He sure seems drunk enough. Brilliant not so much. Then again Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot wouldn't have caught the killer based on the 'clues' Harry Hole (excellent name) gets in the movie. Rebecca Ferguson's character has some backstory. She's about the only one. JK Simmons and Sofia Helin (The bridge) are severely underused.

A small positive is some of the cinematography by Dion Beebe. Shot in Norway we get to see some beautiful scenery. The setting was nice but although it's set in Norway and the characters are supposed to be Norwegian they all speak English with a different accent. Even the papers are in English. If snow is the only reason for shooting in Norway they might as well have moved the whole thing to Alaska or Colorado for example.

Worst part of all is that there has to be a good movie somewhere in this mess. Who knows? Maybe someday Alfredson finds the parts that are missing and we get an amazing director's cut. One can dream.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Not the best but certainly the most overhyped

[7/10 · 17 December 2017]

As the Rebellion tries to evade The First Order, Rey asks Luke Skywalker to teach her the ways of the Force. Meanwhile Kylo Ren is still a whiny POS.

Director/writer Rian Johnson faced a gargantuan task. Two years ago J.J. Abrams did the impossible by making a successful sequel to 'Star Wars'. Johnson had to follow that up with something more creative because let's be honest, 'The Force Awakens' (TFA) was a copy. He succeeds partially.

When the movie started there were cheers. It doesn't get any better than the iconic opening crawl with John Williams' score. Although there's a certain resemblance to 'The Empire Strikes Back' (opening scene, Luke on the remote planet) 'The last Jedi' isn't a copy. Johnson has came up with a more or less original story with new characters and some twists. However, the problem with some of the new characters is that they get too much screen time while contributing nothing to the story. In some cases up to the point where they're just plain annoying. Benicio Del Toro anyone? Meanwhile we find out nothing new about the characters we got to know in 'TFA'. Rey, Finn & Dameron still feel new.

The villains are another problem. The most iconic part about 'Star Wars' has always been the villains. Darth Vader is an icon. Emperor Palpatine and Darth Maul were also quite impressive. Without spoiling anything I think it's safe to say Kylo Ren (who's still suffering from huge mommy and daddy issues), Supreme Leader Snoke & General Hux are terribly underwhelming.

That of course doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Although it runs too long it entertains. The effects and choreography are top notch and the overall look of the film is stunning. DOP Steve Yedlin does a fine job. The final battle looks amazing ( the red stripes on the salt plains). Although there's a bit too much humor for our liking, there's some genuine funny moments. The Porgs have a bright future ahead of them marketingwise. Of course there's the nostalgia factor. It's great to see those familiar faces again and the sound of lightsabres and TIE fighters are music to our ears.

On the other hand it's obvious Johnson and Disney want to go down a new path. Whether that path is the right one remains to be seen. With the announcement of a new trilogy coming up it feels like they're milking it. And you can take that literally. What's up with that milk scene? Cringeworthy.

The biggest problem is that 'The Last Jedi' is incredibly hyped. There are reviews that say the movie is dark and that it's the best since 'The Empire Strikes Back'. I know opinions can differ but it doesn't come close to any of the original trilogy.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

A worthy sequel to one of the sci-fi greats

[8/10 · 30 October 2017]

K (Ryan Gosling), a young blade runner, discovers a long-buried secret. The discovery sends him on a journey to track down Deckard (Harrison Ford), a blade runner who's been missing for 30 years.

Director Denis Villeneuve and DOP Roger Deakins really knock this one out of the park. They pay tribute to the original without copying it. Obviously set in the same universe the city landscape looks the same but it's a bit modernized and more vibrant. Whereas 'Blade Runner' was very dark and rainy and used lots of shadows and smoke, 'Blade Runner 2049' looks more vivid (gold shades in Wallace's headquarters, orange tones). The snowy landscape is also something completely different. That's the vision of Villeneuve and the talent of Deakins shining through. The movie is a visual feast and a huge technical achievement. It all looks and sounds great. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch provide the movie with an excellent score that resembles Vangelis' soundtrack for 'Blade Runner'.

The big question – What makes us human? – still remains. But 'Blade Runner 2049' digs a bit deeper. It's an exciting detective story but it plays more to the emotions than its predecessor. Ryan Gosling conveys his emotions masterfully. He's very cool on the surface but underneath he's struggling with some personal issues. Gosling is really terrific here. Harrison Ford gives one of the best performances of his career. He's challenged as an actor. It's not what he usually does but he really shines. The supporting cast, led by the excellent Robin Wright as lieutenant Joshi, also delivers. The Dutch Sylvia Hoeks (Luv) is someone we're going to hear from. Jared Leto was less convincing as Niander Wallace. Just like in 'Suicide Squad' he falls short as the main "bad guy".

Another negative is the long running time (163 min.) and the pacing. The movie is visually stunning but at times it feels the makers are just showboating. The narrative is too thin to justify the running time. Some scenes could have been a lot shorter (first time we see Joi (Ana de Armas) or the "hologram sex scene").

All in all 'Blade Runner 2049' is a great movie. Denis Villeneuve is a ballsy filmmaker. Not only did he take on the job of making a sequel to 'Blade Runner', he also put his own stamp on it.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

'Kingsman: The Secret Service' on steroids

[7/10 · 25 September 2017]

When the Kingsman headquarters are destroyed Eggsy (Taron Egerton) learns of the existence of Statesman, the Kingsman's American counterpart. The two organizations must join forces to take on a common enemy.

Right from the start it's obvious 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' is going to be bigger and louder than its predecessor. The movie offers more over-the-top fight scenes, more gadgets and more characters. Sadly more doesn't mean better. At 141 minutes the movie is a bit too long. The opening scene is fun for about a minute but quickly becomes annoying. Not to mention the robotic dogs who should have never seen the light of day (along with Jar Jar Binks and that dude Mutt from the latest Indiana Jones to name a few). The story isn't all that great but writers Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman do their best to tie it up with the original. While the rather silly "world domination/drugs plot" is something you're more likely to see in 'Austin Powers' than in 'James Bond', it is fun. And that's what 'Kingsman' is all about. Although it lacks the punch of the original it's still a fun ride.

The star-studded cast has a lot to do with that. Taron Egerton is eggcellent as Eggsy. He's a charming leading man and the combo with Mark Strong (Merlin) works a treat. Pedro Pascal as Whiskey fits right in but it's Julianne Moore who steals the show. Moore is cast as the villain (Poppy Adams) and she looks like she's having a blast. Too bad some of the new characters are underused. Channing Tatum as Tequila and Jeff Bridges as Champ come to mind.

Vaughn who's back in the director's chair maketh yet another solid movie. The Zach Snyder like fight scenes look just as spectacular (hello electric lasso) as they do in the first movie, the jokes hit the mark more often than not (the dining scene) and the soundtrack only adds to the fun.

If 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' wasn't your cup of tea you better stay away from this one. But if you loved the first you'll appreciate the sequel as well.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

He's back (in 3D)

[9/10 · 18 September 2017]

More often than not a sequel doesn't live up to the original, but 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day' does exactly that and more.

Some 10 years after the events that took place in 'The Terminator', Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is imprisoned in the loony bin because she kept rambling on about a nuclear war and time travelling cyborgs. Her son John (Edward Furlong), the future leader of the human resistance is now 10 years old and living in foster care.

Meanwhile in the future (2029 A.D.) the machines under control of the computer Skynet are still waging war on what is left of mankind. The machines send a Terminator, the T-1000 (Robert Patrick), back in time to kill John Connor. The rebels in their turn also send back a reprogrammed Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to protect John. As the fate of humanity hangs in the balance, the boy, his mother and their new ally must try to stay one step ahead of the T-1000 on their mission to prevent the creation of Skynet.

While a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary to go along with a story like this one (damn those paradoxes) it doesn't make it less great. This is as much a story about hope and family as it is about cyborgs slapping each other silly. It's a sci-fi/action movie filled with awesomeness (the truck chase scene) but it packs an emotional punch. Cameron blends the trilling action sequences very well with the drama and surprisingly enough humor.

If a movie has a villain it better be a darn good one. With the T-1000, ILM (George Lucas' special effects company) created something unseen and basically made the impossible possible when it was released back in 1991. While the new Terminator is an amazing technical achievement, Robert Patrick makes it an iconic character. He's an absolute monster. Tough as nails, insanely relentless and ice cold.

On the other end you have a very likable hero. Schwarzenegger really brings his A game. He's limited as an actor but he knocks this one out of the park. Hamilton gives us one of the stronger female characters in movie history and Furlong makes a very strong debut. Top that off with an excellent score by Brad Fiedel and you have yourself a classic.

We don't care much for 3D. Although it's done quite well here it's nothing more than a gimmick. It doesn't add anything but it did give us an excellent excuse to see Terminator 2: Judgment Day in theaters.

Mother! (2017)

The story makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

[3/10 · 18 September 2017]

Director Darren Aronofsky's latest starts intriguing but ends up being obnoxious.

Jennifer Lawrence plays Mother, a young woman living in a remote mansion together with her partner whom is credited as Him (Javier Bardem). Bardem is a poet struggling with writer's block. Lawrence is renovating the house. One night a stranger (Ed Harris) knocks on the door. Bardem invites him in but Lawrence isn't exactly fond of their guest. The day after the man's wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) shows up. After the couple's sons (played by real-life brothers Domnhall & Brian Gleeson) make an appearance things get stranger to say the least.

'Mother!' starts off pretty well. It's mysterious and exciting at first but somewhere halfway through the movie suddenly turns into 'The Hobbit' (the uninvited guests who plunder Lawrence's kitchen). Afterwards it becomes boring. The movie is filled with religious symbolism and hidden meanings but the story makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

Lawrence plays her role mostly well. The camera almost never leaves her throughout its 2 hour running time (think 'Son of Saul' although not as extreme). Unfortunately when the story goes down the drain so does Lawrence's performance. During the third act her part is limited to screaming and groaning although at least you still feel sympathy for her. Bardem adds little. Then again the dialogue is severely lacking so there isn't much to work with. Luckily Ed Harris is always good and Pfeiffer really shines. The house also plays a part but it isn't as exciting as you would expect. Apart from the walls that seem to be communicating with Lawrence and a hole in the floor that resembles a lady's private parts there's nothing there.

The idea of following Lawrence that closely works well although Aronofsky and his cinematographer Matthew Libatique pass up some great opportunities to insert some elaborate tracking shots. 'Mother!' borrows a lot from 'Rosemary's Baby'. Big difference however is that the latter is a good movie.

Aronofsky wants people to talk about his movie and he will definitely succeed in that. It's different and audacious, especially the climax. Too bad he chooses excessive violence over a coherent story.

That's not to say there isn't an audience for this type of movie. Whether you like it or not 'Mother!' will stay with you for a while.

It (I) (2017)

It scared me so much that I lost all my milk!

[7/10 · 18 September 2017]

'It', based on one of Stephen King's bestselling novels, is sometimes touching, often funny and always scary.

In the town of Derry, Maine several children have gone missing. A group of seven young friends (the Losers Club) are being tormented by Pennywise the clown, an evil shape shifting entity that feeds on children's fears. As the threat becomes larger the kids decide to fight and kill It.

Since the novel is so long 'It' is difficult to translate to the big screen but the writers did a pretty good job. First off it's impossible to cram the whole book into one movie so they opted to only cover the childhood of the seven friends and not the adulthood. Another change from the novel is that the timeline shifts from the 50's to the 80's. Apart from some pop-culture references it serves no real purpose so it wasn't necessary.

Director Andy Muschietti knows this kind of movie only works if you care about the characters. He takes his time to introduce them to us and to flesh them out. Then again he wastes no time and sets the tone from the start. The opening scene is brutal and serves as a warning for things to come. The scares follow each other up pretty fast.

Pennywise played brilliantly by Bill Skarsgård has a lot to do with that. He's the main attraction of the movie. Although perhaps too much driven by CGI, Skarsgård is terrifying. But there's also another kind of horror. The children all have to deal with their own personal demons (loss of a brother & an abusive father among them). This makes 'It' a coming-of-age story about a bunch of friends facing their fears together and that is the heart of the movie.

A lot rides on the child actors. They are mostly solid with Jaeden Lieberer as Bill and especially Sophia Lillis as Beverly standing out. She's a star in the making. Finn Wolfhard (from Stranger Things) plays Richie, the loudmouth who brings the much needed comic relief. Wyatt Oleff as Stan wasn't great but that might have to do with the fact that his character was perhaps a little flat.

If you don't know what to expect, mix 'Stand By Me' with 'Super 8', add a splash of 'The Goonies' and top it off with a scary-ass clown.

While 'It' is perhaps too long at the end (runtime is 135 min.) it's far better than the 1990 TV movie. If the movie is a success a sequel is inevitable but that's something to look forward to.

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

'Annabelle: Creation' is a dollicious genre flick

[7/10 · 18 September 2017]

Pinocchio's evil cousin is at her absolute worst in 'Annabelle: Creation', the latest installment in The Conjuring Universe. While the final product isn't a very original horror movie it does scare the bejeezus out of you from time to time.

Dollmaker Samuel Mullins (Anthony LaPaglia) and his wife Esther (Miranda Otto) lose their daughter after a tragic accident. Twelve years later the mourning couple decides to take in sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman) and a group of orphan girls. By helping out the orphaned girls the Mullins' hope to bring a little bit of life back into the house. One room in the house, the bedroom of their daughter, is off limits. When Janice (Talitha Bateman), one of the youngest orphans, who's suffering from the consequences of polio does enter the room things go south really fast.

Young Talitha Bateman, who plays the lead, does an admirable job. Her BFF Linda (Lulu Wilson) is less convincing. The other characters are underdeveloped and serve no real purpose. Not to mention their decision making is questionable at best. Clichés are an often recurring problem in the horror genre and it's no different here.

But despite its obvious flaws the movie does work. Director David F. Sandberg, who directed last year's horrorhit 'Lights Out', really knows how to build up tension. He uses light and sound in an effective manner and the setting (old creaking house in the middle of nowhere) is great. It's not an edge-of-your-seat movie but there's definitely a sustained sense of threat and there's some really good scares that'll make you jump out of your seat.

'Annabelle: Creation' isn't nearly as good as 'The Conjuring' but it's a huge step up from the original 'Annabelle'.