herbert_heart

For me it build up a very enjoyable suspense. Sadly, episodes 7 and 8 were sub-par. The acting was all right, only the Melody part seemed to have been too hard.

In "Game of Thrones", Oberyn Martell vs Gregor Clegane was an epic moment in TV show history. The way the viewer was led into the fight and the way the fight was executed were filled with drama and surprise, the right dose at the right time. In this episode of "Dave" they managed to do the same in a different genre.

I love both series, it is so refreshing to see a young and daring version of Woody Allen and Larry David (I adore them both). Some other episodes of the series are great, overall I thought that the later episode in S01 and the earlier episodes in S02 could have been better. But in retrospective everything seems to lead to the climax in S2E10, and it would not work to leave out any of the other episodes that lead to this climax.

Not only is everybody's acting just perfect, most importantly Burd's and GaTa's of course, but the way this episode builds up to a moving finale is so well written, directed and produced, that the overall friendship vs egocentricity theme grabs you, holds you, and releases you with a punch. Bravo.

Excellent finish, superb storytelling. The climax, of course, was E03. The rants that I read here are childish to say the best, it's like *my superheroe did not win, I hate the writers now, whine whine whine*. This wasn"t made for 12 year olds!

This episode is rated at 9.1 and falling - much too low in my opinion. I simply don't understand what other reviewers did not like about the outcome of the battle. This episode slowly but gradually destroys any hope and the finale is certainly very unexpected, so this is GoT at its best. Also, some reviewers criticized Bran's phlegm. I think it was great because it made people think about his character. There must be a reason for the Night King's interest, right?

When I watched this on HBO on day 1 (which was Monday in Germany) this episode was too dark. Watched it again on day 2 on same TV with same settings - much brighter now. I think it is either the compression (many viewers on day 1) or HBO re-adjusted / re-encoded.

Yes, Spacey was great, I enjoyed series 1-5 more, too. But if those were an 8, then series 6 was maybe a 6 or 7, not a four. It is silly to carry your "not me too" attitude into the reviews. The ending ist actually quiet good.

Like John Carpenter's / Dan O'Bannon's "Dark Star" this is a student movie. It can be viewed on YouTube in full length. It was not blown up to feature film length like "Dark Star", instead it sticks with the game show length of 45 minutes, which is good. Some (if not all) music videos of director Andreas Dorau were mixed into the show. The music clips are good and so is the music, but they do not really take the game show anywhere. However, the overall game show / music show mix is well balanced, fun to watch and enlightening at times.

The game show is set in the future where pets can talk. The game concept is a competition between pets and their respective owners, thus the title "beat your pet". Examples for such games include a dog trying to guess which partner his owner would prefer and then the owner trying the same, or a bear competing with a boy in a bicycle race. In the most elevated moment of the movie a dog hypnotizes a man, one of the very few great scenes in German film history.

The show draws it's charm from many sources. The acting is notable, Friedrich Graumann was perfectly casted as game show host Tony. But there are many smaller roles which are executed just as great. Take for example Peter-Paul Gardosch, a motorcycle guy that could easily rival with any Son of Anarchy. He competes in chipping toss with a goose.

Humans in this movie usually only win the competition because they play unfair. The coin flipping goose is being intimidated, the bear riding the bike is being sabotaged in many cruel ways. Occasionally the cheaters are being convicted - but for the wrong cause. In the end the ridiculous scenery with misbehaving people, talking pets and cunning children paints a vivid picture of morale decay. Dorau's work is much more than a game show persiflage and ranks high above the typical output of the "Hochschule für Film and Fernsehen" in Munich, which released some embarrassing supporting movies into the cinemas in the 90ies.

*** Spoilers ***

I used to be able to predict the IMDb rating of a moving with a variance of +- 0.3 I would therefore rate this movie 6.8 (my own opinion is a little lower). But the movie is rated around 9. Why is this? Maybe I lost touch, but investigating all the flaming reviews here, I think that Interstellar is another movie that bought reviews, just like Godzilla (which was worse than Interstallar). Godzillas ratings came down to 6.7 from 9. something BTW. Taking all the fake reviews into account, it is probably a 5. something movie.

Interstellar is better but still disappointing. There are a number of references to "Space Odissey" (the music for example) which is bumptious, because Interstellar has absolutely no depth with the exception of the scene where it is revealed that children learn in school that the moon landing was fake. This was a funny lesson about "truth" and really the only scene that mad it worthwhile to think about, while for the rest it is best to set the brain to standby. People hover at the edge of black stars and play ghosts in their own past here, what more can I say. Why not have 4D fairies or people that fly into the sun with only some sunscreen.

... to the company that fakes the IMDb buzz of this movie. Unbelievable, they faked the votes (it still came down from 9+ to 7+) but they also faked comments and forum entries. Nice.

The movie itself.... superb CGI, terrible acting, many awkward scenes (+ unnecessary children), a story not worth mentioning.

I really don't know how to get 10 lines together about this movie which is the minimum review length on IMDb. So I will write more about faking reviews. Much like the end of network neutrality, the end of internet review neutrality is nearing. You will need a lot of money to get good ratings, the product ratings will then be done for you no matter how worthless the product. IMDb ratings used to be such a great source of information but I saw it decline over the years. Pretty soon it will all be fake.

The movie has some nice scenery and a clever "movie in movie" idea to offer, plus the occasional odd Bavarian character. Other than that I am sorry to say that it failed for me. The "use your fantasy" theme soon started to bore me (Lars von Trier's Dogville showed that it can be done right), the director's struggles became annoying. There was no character I felt attached to, although the acting was solid.

Maybe my expectations were too high, I really liked the trailer. I did not have one laugh from this movie, but some other viewers did, although my impression was that they really tried hard.

Maybe one should not be so harsh with a student project, but then again John Carpenter's Dark Star was a student project, too. However, it should be mentioned that the movie was technically executed without a flaw.

The movie is about repression of guild (and how it will continue to haunt you) in a tiny place in deepest Bavaria, well supported by the local rituals (which are authentic, I guess, at least I have seen similar masquerades and "devil expulsions" in Austria). At times the movie reminded me of "Angel Heart" - but situated in the blackwood forest. And the revelation is different, and - as the currently only other reviewer stated - it may be a bit too far fetched. However, this did not stop my enjoyment of the film.

Acting is flawless, Benno Fürmann is Germany's top crop and Alexandra Maria Lara (played Hitler's secretary "Traudl" in "Der Untergang") is gorgeous but still manages to fit into the image of the Hinterwädler. Thankfully the movie never looses its focus for some superfluous romance.

Not that I do not like many Hollywood productions, but this one clearly is a different breed, without being super-artistic like Hanekes "The White Ribbon" which I loved, too, and which is more profound - but also less entertaining, at least for me.

I think a fair rating for "Hinter Kaifeck" is 7.9. I rate it 9 just for some offset.

I adore this movie. You need not to use any psychoactive substances to enjoy it - although it helps. This movie is a major work in the sciences of the philosophy of mind, camouflaged as a low budged hippie space opera. To call it comedy would be absolutely misleading. The most fruitful parts are the conversations with the bomb. I love those so much that I compiled some of them into a sound collage ("Teaching Phenomenology") which you can listen to at 2ndfoundation.de

Thank you so much for this transcendental experience, John Carpenter, Dan O'Bannon and everybody else involved. The performances are great, too, O'Bannon immediately became my hero when I first saw this movie in the eighties. If I had two celluloid wishes then it would be Andy Kaufman finally admitting that he is alive by releasing "In God We Tru$t 2" and Dan O'Bannon appearing in "Dark Star II - Beyond The Phoenix Asteroids".

I rented this movie without knowing if it was a comedy, a science-fiction or whatever. It started out really strong. Will Smiths' performance is great and his role somewhat untypical. For the first half of the movie it is mysterious what his character is up to, which produces a very enjoyable tension. He could be the good guy, but he is probably a villain. Then, when about 50% of the movie is over, the good idea is sadly given away to a mediocre, boring love story and the resolution is wasted way too cheap.

I rate the first half of the movie 7, the second half 3, so the average is 5. I would subtract one star because of the terrible balance. Then again I add one star since the original idea of the plot is really good.

There are plenty of movies about losers, "Trainspotting" is a more recent and memorable one. In my opinion "Midnight Cowboy" is the best movie about losers and a great movie about friendship.

I admit that I feel that this movie is packed with metaphors - but I only understood a fraction of them. There are also a notable number of flashbacks that never quiet resolve. But that does not matter since this movie is able to produce strange, unforeseen and intense emotions.

I see Joe Buck's and Ratzo Rizzo's likable relationship in the center of those emotions. Voight's and Hoffman's play is outrageous, I never saw a better Hoffman, not even in "The Godfather". I have not seen much of Voight at all but he, too, acts just great.

"Marathon Man" is another superb Schlesinger film, of course. I recommend both for a DVD night. They really go together well, "Marathon Man" is a solid and intelligent Thriller and "Midnight Cowboy" is ... hard to say what but very strong.

This is an overly boring movie. Everything happens in one room packed with mostly bad actors. (Tony Todd being the exception on the good side, Alexis Thorpe on the other hand is just unnecessary and David Lee Smith is just depressing. Others are mediocre at best.) I bought (!) this DVD since it was not available for rent anywhere in Germany and the reviews here were so good (I probably did not get the irony). I am also always looking for some good Sci-Fi and a star Trek script is not the worst resume. From the review I knew that I could not expect a space opera. In the first ten minutes of the movie I was only annoyed by the music, which is cheesy and does totally not fit to the dialog.

30 minutes later one must realize, that not much more will happen. One guy insists on being 14.000 years old and tells some stories, one of those is that he was a misunderstood Jesus, to prove his point. In the end he admits it was all fake just to relieve the listeners, and then it is of course being revealed to the viewer that everything was right - the 14.000 year old man is actually the father of one guy in the group and proves this be giving family details.

Ouch. This movie is just a plain bad TV-production. I give it 4 stars, because I never give less.

The robot WALL-E, much like HAL 9000 in Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", did evolve through some sort of unknown higher order logic. While HAL's program paths started to differ from the calculations of his twin machine on earth, WALL-E develops emotional reactions and keeps going while the other machines of his make are long defunct.

There is however one big difference between WALL-E and HAL: while HAL shows rather verbose responses, WALL-E does not or cannot talk much at all. And EVE, the other robot that comes into play later, is about as monosyllabic as WALL-E. Also, their gestures are quiet limited, WALL-E can shake his telescopic old-school binoculars a little and EVE displays a high-tech screen with one color bitmap eye-like silhouettes.

However, this is enough for Andrew Stanton and his team to express a relationship between WALL-E and EVE which is deep enough to repeatedly move the viewer to tears. While the movie works best on the emotional level, it also contains intellectual surprises. It deals with similar topics like Spielberg's A.I. - but in a lot purer and (even) more intelligent way by almost completely leaving out the concepts of good, evil and unnecessary melodramatic elements.

It is simply amazing how the robots in this movie were stripped from every unessential gadget and how these machines grow into the heart of the viewer only by the doing of their deeds. The movie does on top of this display a very high degree of artistic visual perfection and simply contains a story told well.