Ihad Reviews

The Descent (2005)

Forget "The Cave" and take the descent into the dark. You will be scared. Promise.

[7/10 · 14 November 2005]

If you scare easily then you might not want to descend into that cave with those girls. It is pretty tense. Be warned. "The Descent" is a classic horror shocker from British director Neil Marshall, featuring an all girls group and their love for extreme sports, aka "No risk no fun". It centers on two of the women, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) and Juno (Natalie Jackson Mendoza), in a caving expedition that goes all wrong, the rest is just - as in all horror flicks - extras and their fate is clear from the beginning.

The movie starts slow and builds on the traumatizing car accident in which Sarah loses her husband Paul and daughter Jessica. One year later her five friends organize a caving expedition to help her get back to her old self. Sarah is still on heavy medication and has not overcome her loss. The six girls set out to explore a cave somewhere in the Appalachian mountains and that is where the movie unfolds its menacing claws and grabs you right at your throat and never lets go all through until the end.

It's dark, it's intense and you feel like you squeeze through these tunnels yourself, getting stuck any moment with the rocks collapsing on top of you. If that weren't enough, you start seeing pale human like creatures that seem to live down there in that cave, predators. They hunt you. They eat you alive.

There are plenty of gory scenes and there are plenty of scenes that make you wince and depending on how easy you scare there are plenty of scenes that make you jump. Watching this movie on a cold dark night together with your girlfriend, maybe with a little storm outside, rattling at the window shutters should provide you with the perfect thrill. Be warned, covering your eyes is not enough. The sound leaves little room for speculation and while some may think that a group of six women will result in helpless screaming and running I can assure you this is not the case. There is screaming a plenty but then again you would scream, too. Besides, Juno is one hell of a fighter and when she kills she does it with a ferociousness that is beyond comparison. She makes Rambo look like a school boy - let alone the fact that she simply looks hot - something I cannot attribute to Rambo.

You can pretty much picture out the whole movie and it's not that hard to predict what will happen in that cave. It's pretty straightforward and its predictability is possibly the movie's greatest drawback. Still, it's one hell of a descent into your darkest fears, predictably so or not. Who will survive? Will anyone survive? You will need to watch until the end to find out. I do not want to spoil anything here but it does have a very fitting ending, at least that's what I think. Just one tip, watch out for "Love each day".

The soundtrack just adds to aforementioned tension and ever present menace. The lighting and the different colors are very effective and create an overall atmosphere of impending doom. Again, you will get no rest once you descend into that cave. If you are not too scared you will also have fun spotting all the references to classics like "Carrie" and "The Time Machine". Keep an eye out for those! As this is a British production you can expect the actors to speak in rather thick dialects at times, e.g. there's one Irish girl which might be hard to understand. It has not yet been released in the States at this time but is already out on DVD here in Europe and it's an 18+ release, too. You can buy the R2 release of "The Descent" already. A must have for all horror fans.

Forget "The Cave" and take the descent into the dark. You will be scared. Promise.

Birth (2004)

A woe of a grieving woman's heart without merit and full of superficiality

[5/10 · 13 August 2005]

Anna (Nicole Kidman) becomes convinced that a 10 year old boy is the reincarnation of her dead husband. The viewers of "Birth" on the other hand become convinced that the main characters are rich posh people who have a black woman as maid and rather should spend some money on a shrink for her delusional daughter. Never once in the whole movie do we get to believe in the reincarnation mostly because we are shown how the boy gets to know what he knows (love letters for the win).

Following some threads on IMDb it seems some still believe he truly is her reincarnated husband because of the birth scene in the beginning and because of the dirty hands bathroom "don't tell Anna" scene and lastly because he knew where Sean died. One, birth scene: yes it sets us up for the religious belief that one soul leaves this world and another one enters it, at no time are we told both incidents are linked or that the baby is Sean, so it is just a pointer nothing more. Two, the "don't tell Anna" scene can be interpreted as such that young Sean knows who Clara is and doesn't want to hurt Anna and basically repents his way in his former life. Or, he is just a young brat who doesn't want Anna to find out how he got to know what he knows, which is what most viewers tend to believe and which is why I sort of dissent since as a kid he wouldn't care as much about the "don't tell Anna I dug up your letters" as he would for the fact that he is done for anyhow and is in for a major spanking. So if it is not the latter the kid is concerned about then it is the fact that he does not want Anna to find out about Clara and him but do we care? No. Three, young Sean could have found out about the place where he died by a zillion means of information retrieval. It's not that hard to find out stuff people believe are kept safe and secret… but it does not matter whether or not we believe in the reincarnation, we never "connect" to Anna or the way she believes and this is by choice of the film makers: We are being kept "outside" as spectators.

The movie at all times fails to instill that suspension of disbelief in the viewer that it would take in order to believe. It annoys us with whiny dialogue - esp. when Anna tells her future husband that young Sean told her not to marry him while they make love and as a reply he just forces himself harder onto her, which of course is what she asked for anyhow - and it also pesters us with superficiality and presents us with cardboard characters. When Anna eventually crawls back to her future husband she tells him what she "wants" and at the very end of that "I want" speech she adds "peace" and he replies "OK" and I almost switched off at that point. Maybe it's because I think Nicole Kidman is a total miscast in this role.

At the very end she recites that last letter she got from young Sean, in which he hopes to meet her again in another life time and she has another nervous breakdown right at her wedding and runs towards the ocean (where else would rich people have their summer residence) but she is too confused to actually pull off a proper "Ophelia". 5/10

Unleashed (2005)

fairy tale about a child that is raised to be a killer dog

[6/10 · 13 August 2005]

Danny the Dog (US title: Unleashed) has good fighting scenes in it as you'd expect from a Jet Li movie and it also features some compelling acting from Mr. Li. The only major gripe I have with it is the concept of human experiment which it features as it's premise ("Get them young and the possibilities are infinite"). Put a collar around an infant and raise him to behave like a dog? Realistically speaking the movie has no merit on this level and bluntly asks us to accept the fact that Danny is a grown up "dog" with the mind of a traumatized child. The collar comes off and the "unleashed" dog becomes a martial arts killer machine.

What's more is that Bob Hoskins as Bart just doesn't strike me as the utter despicable human monster he is supposed to resemble. We are presented with cardboard "fairy tale" characters and when we look to the story we find just another rip off of clichés. The story has no dignity to it and is simply without merit, it isn't even that scurrile that you'd be able to accept it for that alone (like in "The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish"). The only "spice" that is added is the martial arts which detaches us from the "transformation" plot and yet (since we all love fairy tales with happy endings) we still hope Danny can make his transformation back into the child he was and become the man he is supposed to be.

If I had to categorize this movie I would file it under Action, Drama, Fantasy. Why the latter? Because once upon a time evil man kills woman, takes infant, infant is raised by evil "uncle" man in evil dungeon to become evil killer dog, sweet music brings back "womb" memories and "unleashes" the human aspect inside the child dog man, love is sweet, love is good and former dog child kicks evil uncle in the nuts and quits and all live happily ever after.

Jet Li delivers good acting and superb martial arts action and if you can forgive all the other short comings then you will like it all the more. I can't help to think that this movie could have done way better with a different director. French cinema is dead anyhow, according to the French critics. 6/10

James and the Giant Peach (1996)

above average kids movie

[11 August 2004]

On revisiting James and his giant peach after almost 8 years I was wondering whether my take on it changed. It did not. I still rate it as an above average kids movie. Transporting a book to film is always a daunting task and even more so if it is a Roald Dahl book. While it succeeds at times you have to put the book aside and see this as independent work and as such it is lacking.

Sometimes the pace seems stretched, the songs seem out of place and all in all we are not really all that interested in what James will be up to next, mainly because he himself doesn't know either and all he really wants is to stop feeling miserable. In order to achieve this he escapes from his evil aunts and makes a journey in a giant peach to the big city across the ocean with his new friends, a centipede, a ladybug, a spider, a grasshopper, a glowworm and an earthworm, fending off pirates and an iron shark and that's the heart of the movie. The beginning and the end (being a mixture of real live and stop motion) unfortunately do have the look and feel of "tacked on" to it.

The stop motion work is spot on and at times you begin to wonder how they did it since the movements are so fluid you hardly notice any stop motion jerkiness. The voices are all fantastically cast except for James. It seemed as if the actor did not grasp the concept of his character nor the motivation or mood and hence the performance is stale and monotonous at times.

(PG) 6/10

Jersey Girl (2004)

try to be someone you can live with

[7/10 · 10 August 2004]

Having seen all View Askew productions my expectations were different from what I finally saw. While it doesn't have the typical Kevin Smith sharp edge it still has his hand writing but obviously is much more mainstream than any of his previous work. "Jersey Girl" benefits from good screen writing and excellent acting from newcomer Raquel Castro (Gertie Trinke). She really had me convinced unlike Ben Affleck (Ollie Trinke) who at times appeared to struggle with his character, esp. in the more emotional scenes, but thanks to the chemistry between Gertie and Ollie this does not weigh too heavy. Liv Tyler (Maya) pleasantly surprised me this time, esp. after her LOTR trilogy fiasco. Also noteworthy is George Carlin (Bart Trinke) who also gives a solid performance as grumpy grandpa.

Life writes the best stories they say and this one has the look and feel of a real life story to it. There's death, loss, failure, deprivation, coming to age, struggling with oneself, love, joy, laughter and tears. While the overall tone of the movie is light and uplifting it does have its melancholic moments but as with comedies it doesn't fully explore these, which would be unfitting if it did.

The only downside for me was the ending which reeks of Hollywood Happy End through and through. Was this really necessary? The "Bar" Scene at the end could and should have been omitted and the end of the school performance would have been totally sufficient as open ended ending, but then again as mentioned at the beginning, we are treated with a highly mainstreamed Kevin Smith here.

7/10

Shrek 2 (2004)

intermedial cat sized fairy tale fun ride

[6/10 · 9 August 2004]

Fears that Shrek2 is a "So Shrek was a hit and we want to make more money" movie can be dissipated - at least to a certain degree. It has the touch and feel of a sequel - well of course! It is a sequel, but I would argue it is a worthy one. There's plenty of fun, plenty of references to all sorts of films and tales, there's a puss in boots and it talks besides other things. The plot doesn't really demand much of our attention but then again neither did Shrek. The CGI is shrekalicious and leaves little to be desired. It doesn't not want to be photo realistic so please do not expect any Gollum CGI stuff, besides the lighting and animations are fantastic. This is a comic book like fun fairy tale ride, fast paced - are we there yet - at times and chock full with good music.

The voices of Mike and Eddie are complemented yet again by sexy Diaz and Antonio "Puss" Banderas! Simply hilarious. Again, I recommend you go see the original, e.g. in comparison the German voices leave a lot to be desired.

It doesn't bring anything "new" it's "just" more Shrek, but then again that's exactly what you should expect and exactly what you will get. What more do you want? Shrek3 I hear you coming...

More Shrek Fun for the whole family! 8/10

Shrek (2001)

intertextual piece of ogre sized fairy tale fun

[8/10 · 9 August 2004]

Granted, the CGI in Shrek is different from e.g. Ice Age, Monsters Inc. or Final Fantasy but that doesn't make it bad CGI, it's just different, Ice Age had super cool Water Surfaces, Monsters Inc. had super cool Fur effects and FF had the hair but Shrek has an Ogre and a talking Donkey and that's hard to beat! i.e. effects aren't all in fact in Shrek these are secondary. As the plot thickens - and there's little time wasted before it does - we get entangled in so much cross references to well known fairy tales and popular movies that it's pure fun to watch (even if you don't get all the intertextual references).

The voice acting is simply hilarious and I urge anyone to go see the original version if possible. While localized versions surely have their own style and touch it will not be the same as with Eddie and Mike on the helm. Let's just say voices like these "come in short supply".

If you expect CGI mayhem and a genuine ogre fairy tale you might well be disappointed but if you like a fast paced fun ride through fairy tale land and if you want to know more about the Muffin Man then this is for you and please watch out for unwanted physical contact from she dragons.

Fun for the whole family. 8/10

Van Helsing (2004)

This movie smells like a wet dog

[1/10 · 6 August 2004]

I rarely rate movies as low as 1 but Van Helsing while theoretically deserving a 4 for craftsmanship in cutting, costumes and sf/x, I cannot rate it higher than 1 due to its utmost abhorrent script - plot? what plot? - performance and feeble attempts to be funny. What happened? I did enjoy "The Mummy" tremendously, I even liked the "Mummy Returns" but this is an outrage and Kate Beckinsale - already proven to be worst actress of the year in "Underworld" - seems to have a fable for showing off her body instead of her acting talents, which might prove difficult as these are seemingly nonexistent.

There are indeed many viewers who enjoyed this shallow pop corn flick and it's their good right to do so, but as fan of the genre I could merely wince in my chair seeing how such a potential character as Van Helsing goes to waste in yet another instalment of "all show and no brains".

Yet it began really promising with the hunt for Mr. Hyde (very nice CGI there) but sadly these first 15 minutes are the only highlight of this movie and Richard Roxburgh seems to be only actor worth his grain of salt.

Go see The Mummy again instead. 1/10.

Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (2002)

a wonderful tale of love found and lost

[7/10 · 6 August 2004]

This movie is most memorable for its beautiful scenery and while the story itself is told with skill and ambition it still lacks proper pace at times. Less would have been more here.

Also it seems that as the movie nears its end the writers had a hard time thinking of a artistically pleasing ending and by doing so overdid it just a bit. The underwater scene at the end, while having a melancholic touch, did come across as rather forced for an otherwise "natural" film.

The characters are all believable, amicable, intriguing and make you all the more interested in the story, which takes place during the Chinese cultural revolution. Do not expect historic facts since this is no documentary but a tale of love found and lost. A wonderfully poetic one, too.

A highlight of independent film making. 7/10

Traffic (2000)

mainstreamed Hollywood remake full of clichés

[5/10 · 6 August 2004]

"Traffic", a technically interestingly made movie based on the British BBC mini series "Traffik", comes with three plot lines and suffers highly from bad script writing. While we have no remake here per se, the script is based on original material of a 6 hours BBC TV mini series from the 1980s and compared to the original material this movie looks very pale indeed. Soderbergh could have done a lot better than this.

Plot one: a new judge is appointed by the president to fight the war against drugs (weakest, superfluous); Two: an US cop duo tries to nail a drug dealer boss (cop soap style); Three: a Mexican cop duo fights drugs on their own peculiar way by working for one of the drug bosses (the heart of the movie).

Plot #3 has the most screen time and is far more compelling than the other two, mostly due to brilliant acting from Benicio Del Toro. Plot #2 is so predictable that it hardly serves any purpose at all and plot #1, the father-daughter conflict between the drug fighter judge (Douglas) and the drug addict daughter (Christensen) is mediocre and shallow at best. Granted, there are a few lines that go deeper but far too few to prevent this movie from reiterating clichés.

Eventually, in the best tradition of Hollywood cinema, we are catered a mainstream "happy ending" on all plot parts, everything is explained to the last detail, the good guys will get the bad guys eventually and the kids will overcome their drug addiction.

Go see the original.

5/10

The Big Lebowski (1998)

when the dude is blathering about new things that have come to light you better listen

[8/10 · 6 August 2004]

Another Coen classic I dare say. Certainly one of the weirdest Coen films in my book. Jeff Bridges delivers a brilliant performance as "The Dude" but not only he, also John Goodman as Walter is unbelievably good. There's not one character that feels miscast or "out of place", not even the German nihilists. And then there is Jesus... When you think it can't get any weirder (unless you go see "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas") wait until Jesus starts to bowl. Now you may not like bowling but that's of no consequence because "new things will come to light" when you keep watching, things like beverages of a certain kind, rugs, toes, scribbled notes, car stolen, car found, a baseball bat, money lost, the Eagles, thorough doctors, sex, not necessarily in that order.

The dream sequences are yet another part of this movie which in itself would be totally cheesy and boring for anyone to watch, but this time around it's the dude and you fly along with him. No questions asked.

One cannot help but wonder though how the dude makes a living besides playing courier for ransom money? Maybe he acts as a jury for his landlord's dancing performances? Who knows? It's beside the point. The dude does what the dude does: Nothing, but that he does exceedingly well.

8/10

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

rampaging and roaring at 1 mph on the left lane

[5/10 · 5 August 2004]

After seeing both movies Vol. 1 and 2 I finally sat down to review what I saw. What did I see? An awesome, cleverly constructed, action packed movie full of suspense? In so many words: No.

On seeing Vol. 2 the impression hardens that this really should have been one movie of approx. 100 minutes length. Then it could have been good, or not, who knows. It's just that you can't help but wonder why this has to be a separate movie.

People expecting sword fight galore and chopped off limbs by the dozen will be sourly disappointed this time around. KB2 feels like it consists of 90% (cool) talk that isn't all that interesting. Sure, the bride clears a few things up about the wedding and her relation to Bill, but this is what we expected. And that is right where the crux lies. There is no suspension whatsoever. The bride will get her revenge and Bill will die. Surprise! Of course, it's not always necessary to have plot twists or elude the viewer, Titanic never made you guess twice either.

In the words of Coleridge the "suspension of disbelief" never set in. You may argue that this is no requirement for a good movie but I digress. I kept looking at the time index and wondering when this will be over because in spite of all its shortcomings KB2 has a great soundtrack, excellent camera work and tries its best to achieve the QT coolness factor.

Cutting both films into one would have set the right pace for one hell of a QT movie and not two mediocre ones.

5/10

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

makes you shake your head the whole time through

[8/10 · 5 August 2004]

I watched this movie together with another critical viewer and we both - while aware of Moore's tactics and aware of most of the facts beforehand - could not help but shake our heads in disbelief most part through the "documentation". It's simply unbelievable. Is this what you get when you educate a nation via television? The problems lie deeper and Moore fails to touch those since he does not have an answer. However, he does have passion for his cause and he speaks his mind, one would think.

I can see how Disney did not want to distribute this documentary, still by their attempts to stop this they just helped Moore push it even more. Make of that what you will, but it really is one documentary no one should miss. I gather Moore goes to some lengths to provide facts on his web site to further prove his "case", a case that concerns all Americans and all world citizens alike.

There are of course a lot of Moore typical elements that downgrade this documentary to a soap style, slow moving, propaganda piece, but the moments play with the spectator emotionally and as such can be justified, only that it does not have the desired effect if you as spectator can detach yourself from these scenes, which you should. A documentary should be objective, fact driven and not play with emotions. But then again, Moore is rather emotional when it comes to Bush and Fahrenheit 9/11 shows that at times.

Highly recommendable. 8/10

Lost in Translation (2003)

You get to see life as it is. A rare thing. Treasure it.

[9/10 · 5 August 2004]

If you saw the last Oscar show, you might have noticed that Bill Murray was utterly disappointed not getting an Oscar for his performance in LiT. I was too. He was brilliant.

What makes this a good movie? it's just about two people feeling out of place in a foreign country, isn't it? It's the humanity, the tiredness, the resignation, the unspoken attraction, the fun and the feeling to belong, it is what is not on screen that makes this movie work. You have to connect to the "still" of the movie in order to experience this. It is as if this movie tries to paint a still of life in a particular situation, capturing every facet of it in sometimes vibrant sometimes dull colors, depending on the facet itself.

Nothing spectacular happens, except for Bill Murray exercising, no action, no Sf/x. You get to see life as it is. A rare thing. Treasure it.

9/10

Monsieur Ibrahim (2003)

Witty, melancholic, funny, full of love and life

[9/10 · 5 August 2004]

Seldom do I buy the book because I saw the movie. I did this time around and the book is even better than the movie albeit a bit too short, although throughout the book, you will always see Omar Sharif as Ibrahim.

I went to see this without knowing too much about it and from the very beginning it succeeded in drawing me right into Rue Bleu, it was as if I could almost smell it, feel it, touch it. Why? Because we care for the characters, we feel with them, through them. Omar Sharif is just stellar as Monsieur Ibrahim and carries the story with such an ease that it is a delight to watch.

One of the most powerful scenes for me was when Ibrahim confronts Momo about the stealing. There are more but I do not want to spoil it for you. "Ibrahim" is an emotional journey that you have to be willing to make. If you do you will be well rewarded.

Highly recommendable. 9/10

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

roaring revenge lacking proper cut

[8/10 · 5 August 2004]

I held back my review of Kill Bill 1 and 2 until I saw both movies, esp. since originally it was one movie, which is confirmed by the credits in KB2. I do like Quentin's work, albeit in KB1 I found myself asking why? What is so intriguing, entertaining, pleasing, shocking, confusing about it? Well exactly that it is all of that but KB1 fails to deliver in that respect, it is technically brilliant and all students of film making will get the most out of it, but a movie is plot driven which in turn is carried by its characters and I really fail to see why this simply plot has to be stretched out over 2 movies. It is lengthy, oversaturated, chock full with abhorrent dialogue and Uma Thurman doesn't convince me in the least she can wield a samurai sword without cutting herself up.

It seems Quentin has a big bonus due to his prior work (and rightly so) and when it comes to reviews of KB1 I cannot help but feel that he used it all up with KB1+2.

So, when I left the theatre after seen KB1 I asked my fellow viewers what they thought. Everyone agreed that this movie is pointless. Literally, it has no point. We care not why when if killers kill themselves under whatever circumstances and we certainly care not just because it has coolness written all over it. It lacks the certain intelligent and witty touch his prior flicks possessed.

Others I asked were enraged when I voiced my critique and pointed out that this is a masterpiece, a homage to all the trash movies and animes and to that art of film making per se. I grant you that. But why does this make it a good movie? Because? Well, that's just not good enough for me. And what about the soundtrack? You got me there; yes it is top notch in KB1 and 2.

6/10

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

One movie to rule them all

[9/10 · 23 December 2003]

ROTK is in so many words the best epic fantasy movie I have seen in my entire life, with Fellowship of the Ring as close second. I did not like TTT as much as the other 2 but still found it good enough to earn a solid 8 (TTT extended DVD gets a 9 esp. for the Faramir scenes). Now, ROTK...

When I go watch movies I can get irritatingly picky when it comes to details and the general flow of the movie. That flow can be disturbed by just one word from a line of a character. The flow of ROTK was first disrupted for me when I heard Smeagol call Deagol "My love" and secondly in the schizo-dialogue of Gollum/Smeagol this time as water-reflection - also a bad idea to copy yourself I thought instantly when I saw the scene, esp. since the schizo-dialogue scene in TTT was ultimately more powerful. Anyway, these are very small things one can easily forgive. However, I winced everytime Arwen was on screen and for me it was once again just confirmation that Liv Tyler is a total miscast and one can only be thankful that her screentime has been cut to the very minimum in ROTK. Esp. the schoolgirl giggling at the crowning ceremony made me moan. Oh well, I endured her. I am sure there are lots of people who think she was well cast (there's always one) but eventually even PJ must have realized what poo poo he got himself into by casting her (cut cut cut).

Apart from weak Smeagol/Deagol dialogue and the Arwen scenes there is just one more significant criticism: "Saruman" or lack of thereof. I read all about why and how it came to the cutting of those 7 minutes at the beginning of the movie. Now, having seen the movie I can to some extent understand why it is detrimental to (re)introduce a character for just 7 minutes, kill him off and then start with the actual topic of the movie. Still, since we are treated with an Isengard scene (palantir) it is highly unsettling NOT to have the voice duel scene in there and it is also highly unsatisfactory to blank cut from Isengard directly to the Halls of Rohan. How the hell did they get there so fast? Ok, they all rode on Shadowfax... But even this is forgiven, with the comforting assuredness of an Extended DVD Version offering all that is "missing".

For a "cinematic" version it "failed" in that respect that it was too long. Some of the scene could be trimmed a little more and the movie could be a good 20 minutes shorter without any "non fan" noticing any difference. Since PJ redefined the term "cinematic release" I thought we would be treated with a specially cut short version this time. It was not so and I for one am glad for it. Professional Critics might differ and call it a failure with too many endings, but we not listening... we says go away and never come back! ;)

In closing my "review" I must speak of the "epic" character of this picture. The "epic" scenes are so powerful that they make you "feel" the sheer power, the might, the desperation, fatality, sadness and beauty. They touch your soul, they move you in a way not many movies succeed to do, esp. not in this genre. The grace of Gandalf riding to the rescue of Faramir, the charging of the Rohirim into certain death, the kingly end of a father in the arms of his daughter... "Eowyn". So many moments that have you on the edge of your seat, make you gnaw your nails, make you feel exhausted, overrun and leave you totally empty, it is not the End of a Quest you simply happen to watch, it is *your* Quest, the quest of the audience as well and it too comes to an end this christmas... only until Nov 2004 when ROTK EE will enchant us once more.

My recommendation: This movie is best seen twice to gain its full impact.

9/10 DVD EE +1 = 10/10

The Experiment (2001)

The experiment failed.

[4/10 · 27 January 2003]

Anyone giving this film a 10 out of 10 should consider growing potatoes instead of writing reviews. It feels like a remake and a bad one. Sole reason is the script writing which is some of the worst I have ever witnessed on German films. Performances are "good" - not too thrilling but solid. The Story is as plain as the one line summary states. Keyword for the whole story line and plot development: implausible Take the professor for instance. In a world full of mobile phones, he is the only one who cannot be reached by phone when the not too bright assistants who can't act on their own try to reach him. As THE one person in charge of THE EXPERIMENT this is the DUMBEST excuse for NOT being on scene but rather at a cocktail party. Seems the professor has no real interest in the experiment after all...

The only thing this movie achieved when watching it is to make you wonder "When is this over?" at least the professor got shot, not fatal though. Pity. Waste of time. Maybe the >>original<< "Stanford Prison Experiment" (2004) will do better: http://www.imdb.com/Details?0152590

4/10

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Fishing for Canada

[8/10 · 17 January 2003]

The title of this movie did sound odd to me when I first heard it. I didn't connect it with the shooting at Columbine high school right away. Then I read what the movie was about and it clicked. I looked up the word "Columbine" and found that it means "aquilegia" (ger. "Akelei") which of course makes no sense in combination with "bowling". I saw the film and then understood why Moore picked that title. Yet, I probably would have chosen a different title, since this is no (exclusive) documentary about the Columbine shooting. So don't expect that.

A friend recommended this movie to me and I would like to recommend it to just anyone to go see it. It's a controversial issue and it is a good thing to talk about it and this movie certainly makes people talk about it. This movie is not against guns it is against people killing others with guns and tries to find the reason, the motivation behind this. It fails to give an answer, so do not expect one, either.

It succeeds in showing that something can be done if people decide to speak up (K-Mart). It also succeeds in showing that the number of guns per household is not necessarily linked to the number of gun deaths per year, mainly by comparison with other countries. It picks up the concept of "fear and consumption" as main motor behind this dilemma, yet again it doesn't insist on this being the absolute truth. Moore is unsure. He doesn't know. We don't either.

He feels there's need to talk about the almost 12,000 gun deaths/per year. And he definitely is right about that. The more people talk about this, the better the chances are that this number can be decreased.

It is not a movie that wants to make you jump to conclusions about Americans, it wants to make us communicate and try to help find answers to a problem that needs solving. It might even help a little if people stopped watching/being interested in Reality TV shows and rather watch more documentaries...

8/10

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

Put some Windax on!

[7/10 · 17 January 2003]

I happened to see this movie by mere accident. The title was a little weird I thought and so I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I went in without having read anything about it and I came out thoroughly pleased and amused. This movie wants to be funny and entertaining and it certainly succeeds. Granted, the story is plain enough but it is the interaction between the characters that make this work.

Having been to Greece a number of times I happen to like that culture and the climate there. When the movie begins we hear Greek music and see a dark and rainy night in Chicago. Strange stuff, it doesn't fit together, yet. Then we see two people in a car stopping at a traffic sign. One the father, the other the daughter. Both Greek. "You should get married, you are starting to look ... old!" the father tells the daughter. From there on it is clear where this will lead. We don't mind knowing what will happen, it's just refreshing to watch those characters and watch as the daughter tries to break lose from her predefined path, succeeds and when she finally even dates a guy, we again know what's going to happen and again it's fun to watch.

"Is he Greek? No. Is he good? We don't know! Because no one talks to us about nothing any more!" A father loses control and a daughter gains a husband AND a house... next door.

The only problem one might have with this movie is if you take it as a defamation of the Greek people per se. You mustn't. I do not think any Greek would be offended by this movie, yet there may always be one, at least I am positive that it is not the movie's nor the directors intention to do so.

I watched it in the light of a lighthearted comedy, suitable for the whole family and as such it was quite entertaining and funny and next time you go to a Greek restaurant you'll probably be smiling, thinking of "Dancing Zorbas" (incidentally there's one near my place called "Apollo" and it too has all the Greek columns and statues at the entrance).

8/10

Ihad

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Less Pathos is more, less Arwen is more

[7/10 · 11 January 2003]

TTT picks up where FotR ends, naturally. The opening sequence of TTT is breathtaking, why a girl in the row behind me even cheered when Gandalf snatches Glamdring in mid air. You're in medias res and can't help but to immerse yourself in the world of Middle-Earth once again. The grin was back on my face, I liked it... yes you know what I am going to say... the 3 letter word: "but" - but not all is well in the land of Tolkien this time around.

The book has 3 main plot lines and so does the movie. A difficult and daunting task one the director has mastered well to a certain degree. I will not argue about character changes plot cuts, rearrangements or additions, since it is the right of the director to do what he or she feels is necessary in the light of dramaturgy.

Again: but... the pacing does not feel right this time, esp. flashback scenes with Arwen slow the movie down to zero numerous times and are trying the viewers patience and good will, esp. since Liv Tyler fails to impress us with her interpretation of Arwen.

But... it is not only Liv Tyler's scenes, the "pathos" swings high throughout the movie, too high for my taste. King Theoden could have been depicted with greater care and detail and less "pathetic". Him crying with close-up is a little too much. Let him say his lines at his son's grave and "cut" for pity sake.

All in all it is still a well made movie and a worthy successor of FotR. Unfortunately, if you haven't seen the first part you won't get much out of the second one. If you have read the books then you will be upset about certain changes and additions or omissions (as you might have been with FotR). Try to ignore your first impulse and see it for what it is: An interpretation of Tolkien's masterpiece, an action loaded one with a lot of pathos and less character development, except for Gollum, who really saved the day this time around.

Kudos to Andy Serkins. Never have I been so thrilled to watch a CGI character on screen and forget that it is CGI I am watching. Bravo. Of course all effects are top-notch (yes, the Ents are fantastic, too) and the musical score is darker and matches the movie's tone very well.

Given the difficulty to film the 3 plotted 2nd part one might forgive the "pathos" and flashback sequences, even the Faramir changes or the (pointless) "Aragorn River scene" (etc.) but since the pacing is already extremely difficult to handle with 3 plots, it weighs even heavier to make such drastic pacing "mistakes" or - let's say - rather "decisions". 3 points off for this one, Mr. PJ.

7/10 Theatrical Release [maybe 9/10 for Extended Edition if we see more Faramir character development, if certain flashback scenes are cut/changed and if we get more screen time for Ents]

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

You need people of intelligence on this sort of mission... quest... thing!

[8/10 · 11 January 2003]

If you, like me, read Tolkien as a child and went to see FotR in the cinemas you most likely sat there with a huge grin on your face the moment you saw Gandalf arriving in Hobbiton.

Throughout this movie, it all seems to fit in and you totally immerse yourself in a fantastic world you might have read about in your childhood and that is magic. This might not work for everyone but there are a lot of Tolkien fans out there and I am sure it worked and still works for them.

The changes and additions (which provide ample opportunity for heated debates) aside, the movie has its own magic and is so well based on the books that there's nothing much to critizise on first view, of course if you do want to find something then you sure will and there certainly is always room for improvement.

For me, it wasn't really an issue that e.g. Arwen's part was boosted/changed or Tom Bombadil was left out. Even Liv Tyler wasn't really an issue in FotR, although I found her to be the weakest link in the whole cast ensemble.

If you like Tolkien et. al. then you will find that this movie is made with so much care and detail that you will hardly notice the 3 hours and will be eager to see even more. On the other hand if you are not into fairy tales, adventure and "quest... thing" then you might want to stay clear of this one because this is an epic.

Theatrical Release 8/10 :: Expanded DVD Ed. 9/10 (for fans only)

Add.: One thing (among others) the Expanded Version succeeds in is showing Galadriel in a much happier light, which was direly missed in the theatrical version.

Men of Honor (2000)

morale: be true to true stories and don't make a *hollywood* flic out of it

[5/10 · 26 December 2002]

So this movie is based on a true story of the hardship of one man trying to become a rescue diver in the US Navy but due to the color of his skin this proves to be impossible. It shows what still is true, prejudice and racism are well alive worldwide.

I have no complaints about the story but I do think that the script lacks quality. It has way too much pathos for my taste and does the conflict it tries do depict no justice. It doesn't want to tell us about the oppression of ethnic groups, we should be well aware of that anyhow, it is happening all the time. It tries to depict the fate of an individual and as such it utterly fails.

DeNiro and Cuba do not work too well together, either. There's no chemistry. It always feels like "Scene 08, Take 15". I do like DeNiro and Cuba usually and regard them as being fine actors but maybe they should read the script a little closer next time before hopping aboard...

Just because the story is true and just because the issue depicted is still a problem today - not only in the states but worldwide - still does not merit any higher rating than a 5 and that mostly due to the craftsmanship of the 2 main actors.