hanschsolo

Web of Shadows is an Incredibly shallow Spider-Man Story. While it's opening sequence is fantastically setting the tone for the vibe of the game, it can't sustain the feeling of that first mission for the whole game. Starting the game with Moonlight Sonata was perfect in every way. MJ's Voice Over perfectly depicts the conflict within the Symbiote and Peter. No more backstory and explanation needed.

After the Venom fight, the plot is extremely shallow. There are barely any character interactions with consequences. But the fighting system makes up for it. The combat is hardcore and satisfying. Spider-Man truly fights like a menace here, he's not holding back fists and I like It. But let's get to the story-

Horribly executed but great Ideas. No build-ups, cutscenes have no substance, they can basically be skipped without missing a thing, besides the opening and the end fight. I believe that the concept is amazing and If turned into a movie by the right director and team, this could've be an great experience. Because this is dark, gritty and deeply deals with the conflicted soul of Peter and the drastic effects of the symbioses on the character. IT IS A LIVING THING, and I have the feeling that none of these films make it clear. The scene at the end of Spider-Man 3 where the symbiote can be seen without host looking at Peter shortly before he destroys it, there needs to be exactly more of that. Opening sequence great, Ending fight, fantastic, but no character-depth makes for a boring fight without stakes.

It is interesting to see Peter with the symbiote, wanting to stop It taking over the city while HE himself is having trouble with it. Paradoxical, I love it.

The soundtrack is perfect for the whole feeling of the city. But swinging around can be dull because there is barely any music in free roam without playing the story. And the hugest problem with this game-

The CAMERA has a mind of its own. It does whatever it wants. The sensitivity of that cam is so high that when you move your stick only for a little bit, the whole cam turns upside down. Thankfully, new Spider-Man games fixed that.

The greatest thing about this game is the end credits because the Artwork is indescribably beautiful, and the scale of the pictures.. perfect.

I hope someone is inspired by this at Marvel Studios and makes a great story of It at one point.

This is such a terrifyingly great depiction of the elite. What makes it so great, is that we never know what truly goes on behind the curtain. We only get a glimpse of the strange rituals they participate in. The same as the character we follow, Bill Harford. We observe It, but we never learn what these rituals mean, our what will happen next. Imagination is way more terrifying than showing.

It's arguably one of the best character studies in history. I'm talking about Bill Harford. We see how he falls into the harsh reality of life. We see him being jealous, insecure, and sometimes insincere. The whole movie is him realising how dirty this world is. Everybody is lying, doing everything to make money, and being dishonest. He simply realises how fake everything is, including his "perfect" family, and finally, with his wife, he tries to fix his problems, at least in his own family with honesty.

But that's the harsh reality of life, he likely won't be able to change it entirely. We are beings, that tend to do most things just for our own sake. When I look back from this film to Kubrick's A Space Odyssey, especially at the opening scene, I sense a pattern within those films. The Dawn of Men sequence which shows the evolutionary process of us could've been also shown before this film starts, and it still would've had meaning. The same goes for A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick's films are all very different when you look at them first, but they are all practically on the same boat. They are psychological character studies. And Bill Harford, for me turns out to be his best, because he is, what most men in society are.

The huge problem that this film carries is the character of doctor connors. The acting is great, It captures the essence of the character greatly, until the point where he turns into the lizard. He looks goofy, and is not Intimidating enough. He has a very little screen presence, there is no scale to show how huge of a danger he is.

But the worst thing by far, is his motivation to turn the whole city into lizards. The main idea is great, he wants the human body to be as optimized as possible, but that idea is explored so shallow and almost laughable in his execution. Couldn't he just rather want to experiment with DNA's of living beings? And Peter doesn't want that to slip? He could've wanted to use gwen and we would've had great conflict between Peter and Connors. It sure isn't that great of an idea either, but it's better and less of an joke.

Otherwise, damn great atmosphere. I loved the whole setting since I was child. Soundtrack undermines the whole picture epic. The whole story of Peter, wanting so solve the mystery of his parents, is something fresh and new that I appreciate a lot.

But the real deal is his relationship to Gwen. The heart of the film. It Genuinely feels like a real relationship, it isn't over-dramatized, it just feels realistic. This is one of the best on-screen relationships I've seen. I can't put into words how much of a smile I get at that rooftop scene between them, because that scene is so real. People are hilarious and cringe, and we should embrace that in film. This is one of the very few films nowadays that get it right.

Euphoria has many characters and each of them has their own story and relationship to every other character, and while it sometimes loses itself in chaos during the middle of each season, in the end it reminds you of what's important. Because this show uses the what I call, encyclopedic storytelling.

It maxes out the use of this medium. It uses different colors to highlight each tone of each situation, music that underlines the feelings of each characters or situations, match cuts, camera-movements, narration by Rue... there's a lot going on, and I recognize that this was probably extremely hard to shoot and edit. But it was worth it. Euphoria feels so real.

Rue's characters makes this show to what it is. Because the main focus for me, is drug addiction and it's consequences, not the High School drama. I swear, the moment where Zendaya screams at her mum and gia in season two because of the suitcase, The emotions were so raw and real. I wished to see more of her backstory and inner intimate feelings towards her childhood and her relationship to her father or even to drugs.

Nate's character also has very strong moments, especially when he leaves out all the anger towards his father at the end of season one. The best acting is the one where you stop considering it as acting, only a very few actors in my eyes have moments where they are passionate enough to bring out these raw and real emotions of the characters, and Jacob Elordi now is one of those few actors for me.

The whole relationship to his father is brilliantly done on screen, they are having a very shallow and silent relationship where looks tell more than words. His father is a conflicted and deeply broken man, I loved his backstory. I wish they would have filmed more of it to have a little bit more of understanding for his actions, Which for me is very important. If I can't understand a character, it pulls me out.

The writing is okay, the actors do their best and make it believable. The first season for me has a lot of flaws when it comes to certain aspects. The whole posting videos online part doesn't work for me, it is meant to be empowering but it is a completely false take on empowerment, the only thing she empowers is an industry that treats woman like trash and makes man weak. Plus, she's underage. This was a complete mess, and it took away a lot of appreciation I could have given for this series. Because, otherwise it deals greatly with Depression and Drug addiction.

It has it's cringe moments, where I even start to question myself, isn't this a bit too much? For example, the whole play from Lexi, Nate's backstory and his conversations to his mother. Sam Levinson has a huge problem with intimate moments, he turns everything slightly intimate, into the extreme, there are only a few moments where intimate moments are lovely instead of gross.

But Everything from Rue is pure cinematic bliss. Especially the episode where she runs away from home in season two. But what makes Rue a fully developed real character, is that, In the special episode, where she and Ali talk about the concept of god, she's upset that everyone thinks all happens for a reason. And there is the moment at Lexi's play of season two, where she realizes, what they really mean is, you need to give it a reason. Beautiful self reflection. I love the vibe the show creates, so I say, this works on screen, but not on paper, because the feeling is what makes it great.

When the screen turned black, I felt an intense sadness that this Is it. This is the greatest. This is the limit of what cinema can achieve.

You can't talk about Dune without talking about religion. It somehow manages it to critique monotheistic religious concepts like Christianity and Islam, without ever feeling pretentious. It offers room to rethink the whole idea of religion. Every characters offers different perspective, and how someone perceives what exactly the film wants to say is up to them, but no matter what, I've never seen a film with such strong substance.

For me, Dune is a demonstration that faith Is control, you can only guide a mass with belief, worshipping someone will always have horrific effects on society. Individuality is lost in the process of worshipping and existing-for-a-higher-reason.

There is so much cultural influence from Christianity and Islam in Dune, and that makes it's story more realistic and interesting. It makes it clear that it's speaking towards these religious ideas, this is what makes Dune feel like less of an work of fiction, but more of an analysis and take on monotheistic religions intertwined with climate change in an science-fiction setting.

Dune 2 It's filmmaking style Is literally the final stage of IMMERSIVE and INTENSE. I want to thank all the VFX- and sound design artists personally for making it feel like I'm living through this with the characters on arrakis. Words literally cannot explain what Dune 2 feels like. Jessica drinking the water of life, The whole first worm ride scene, the arena scene, the final knife fight... These are the scenes that got me the most goosebumps. But to be honest, the whole picture is made with so much care and love that makes it hard to choose a favorite.

Denis Villeneuve just understands how to direct and motivate a crew properly. He made everyone do their job just so damn good, there is no single aspect that comes short, I missed these kind of films with so much care and love and vision, that it feels fresh again.

But Dune 2, isn't just some film from that category. It deals with highly critical and ever-lasting topics, that'll always be important until the end of our very existence. It doesn't matter whether you're religious or not, everyone should see this film to see belief and worshipping from a different perspective. I love Dune 2, this is how films should hold mirrors up to society.

If someone would've told me ten years ago that I will want to become a filmmaker in the future, I would've laughed at them.

2001 changed my perspective on cinema and filmmaking forever. But not only that, It changed my whole perception of life. And I'm not exaggerating-

It all starts with an empty landscape. Nothing in near sight. Just a field and the sunset. The text appears, the Dawn of Men. And my 18 years old me had no idea what to expect from this film, but never ever would've I've thought that It would thematize the beginning of humanity and our progression as race.

How can you shot and edit a film, this unique and perfectly?!? How can a film use every second filled with mesmerizing images and mesmerizing sound-design AND underlining meaning. The feeling those images combined with the music give me.. it means everything to me. That's what filmmaking is all about. Creating an piece of art that mesmerizes people with an progression of thoughts and feelings.

2001 left me questioning my existence. The raw feeling of realizing that we know nothing is frightening. We are just a little spot to the universe.

It's a film that changed my perspective, my way of thinking and my thoughts.. every time I see the emptiness of space in the sky, I realize that we don't know what's behind that. And 2001 is a film that tries to answer. It deals with our previous history, and our potential future. And it feels so tangible. Even when the film gets to the point where our brain's comprehension is not enough to understand what's going on anymore, It feels so real. And it always feels different. My brain opens itself while I watch this. No one does and ever will do it like Kubrick again. This is a film that goes beyond the infinite and with it, it messes my mind up, but it surely does has an effect on me like no other film.

This is perfect entertainment. Pirates of the Caribbean isn't that special when it comes to the story, it's simple, straight-forward and easy to follow.

I believe the script, on paper, has nothing special to it, what makes this film so OUTSTANDINGLY special and be one of the greatest sequels to an blockbuster is the whole filmmaking. The pacing, the set-design, the editing, the soundtrack.. It takes the experience on another level.

It wouldn't work without Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Hans Zimmer, Gore Verbinski and all the other talented artists that worked on the production. Most importantly to note is the editing and the soundtrack. It goes hand in hand. This film for me perfectly embodies what Kubrick once said, A film is not a work of fiction but rather an progression of thoughts and feelings. For me, this film progressively creates an atmosphere that is unbelievably unforgettable and feels so tangible and that's what counts. That's more important than a great script. To deliver an script, no matter if it's good, mediocre or bad, in the most immersive way possible.

That's enough said, Immersive experience. Every High-Budget film should look at these ones and take inspiration.

How can a movie resonate with the viewer, if the story builds for two hours, and ends in 10 seconds? How can a writer think that this will have an impact on the viewer?

Well, the film feels and looks like a comic book. It is an simple comic book storyline, It feels kinda like a saturday morning cartoon. This is a great look if you're going for an animated movie, but for a whole picture that is demanding towards older audiences.. this is a problem. An problem which Hollywood doesn't seem to care about. Because I've seen this in almost every high-budget adventure film this year.

It is always the same structure. The Hero returns and needs to save someone or defend somewhere, one that is near to him explains that he needs to get to A because at B him awaits an creature, that is much stronger than him. So he needs to get an item, or in this specific case, get an person, that could help him. AND very important to note here, is that the villain always gets teased at this part as this demonic, highly frightening creature.

In the end, he's mostly just an huge piece of plastic or an huge piece of Green-Screen. Or, the worst case, he dies in merely 60 seconds after his great appearance.

While this kind of storytelling overshadows what audiences REALLY want, and what potentially great writers could achieve if there would be more demand for interesting, immersive concepts and ideas in Hollywood, at least, please, try your best in writing your characters Appealing.

The first Aquaman is simple, it's basic, but in it's first minutes it's already emotionally resonating and has GREAT camera-angles that psychologically just attracts someone to stay for more. The movement of the camera was immediately grabbing. And in the end, you got an work of art which is intense, epic and emotional at once, just because the filmmaking does the best out of it.

So, either have a great script, or have a great filmmaker, a great sound-editor, cinematographer, composer, color-grader, visual effects artist..

Filmmaking is not without reason called an art-form.

Napoleon is so greatly shot and acted, Joaquin Phoenix fits the role and plays the character in various sets of emotions. He brings more to Napoleon than the standard assumption that he's just an Strategical master in the battle field.. but.. here we got the problem. He's much more than that, He's an emotionally devastated character. But not in the way Ridley Scott sees him to be. Because of his emotional unavailability, he cares only for himself. Napoleons Ego is huge, and most of the Letters and reports from people within that time confirm it. Josephine is just like a ladder in his life, he needs it to succeed and have motivation to return home in the battlefield. You could say she's just an object for him

And Ridley Scott completely tosses aside his strategical mastermind. The battle field scenes are not more than action. It's not intense, it doesn't build any tension. And from a Napoleon film, I expected something at least as tense as the Flight fights and the Submarine scene in Dunkirk.

Historical Inaccuracy is the next thing that bothers me. Why make it so inaccurate for no reason. It didn't help but make the film less interesting. It doesn't help to just put cool non-historical scenes like shooting at the pyramids in, when you don't spend time on your writing and your filmmaking.

Again, I believe Stanley Kubrick is right. A film should rather be more like music than like fiction. A Progression of thoughts and feelings. The theme, the story and meaning behind it, it all comes later.

This film doesn't do that. Characters talk a lot. A LOT. It just doesn't keep you interested. I try to keep up but it should not feel like a documentary, otherwise I could watch one. The way dialogue is used is so boring, it is so much and so long, without prestigious sentences that leave an impression and stay in your mind. Everything in film should build in an three act structure, dialogue, compositions of pictures, a plot, a character.. that's how you make the most interesting story's and leave an lasting intense impact. Look at the Waterloo film from 1970, the first ten minutes sum up the whole conflict, with facial expressions, silence, screaming, whispering.. use expressions and emotions to highlight what you want the viewer to feel!

Nothing in this film could hook me. Killers of the flower moon is a film that tries so hard to be ambitious, and complex, and tell a large-story, without ever caring to be interesting. It tries so hard to be real that it forgets to be interesting. This is my main problem.

Things just happen. People just talk. Camera stands still. No facial expressions. No cries, No laughs, not any emotions are in sight. This is simply plain boring cinema. DO SOMETHING! Move, cut, show emotions, be alive, make your characters and your world feel alive, the camera should be it's own character but it's not. And all of the things I mentioned were very well made by Martin Scorsese in the past. He lost his touch as a director, he lost what made him great. His characters were interesting and all different, in Killers, all feel the same. They're not interesting enough.

My main problem is that it is almost like a documentary. But it's not the job of a film to tell a historical story accurate, it's the job to do it as accurate as it can be in an interesting matter. This is cinema. Give your own spin into it.

I could've listened to a podcast and it would've been the same. Compare this to Nolan's Magnificent Cinematic Oppenheimer and it ultimately falls down the elevator into ground zero, while Oppenheimer is at ground 10. In other words, it's a piece of non-interesting information clustered together in an even more uninteresting context.

It does not work. It is old-fashioned cinema. The kind of cinema that I believe, we do not need anymore. We need a new wave of artists, that tell more twisted and complex stories that dare to say something bold or critical, without simply just showing what once was. These times are over and have no huge effect on a viewer anymore, me especially. Give your own twist into the plot.

In a world full of crossovers, remakes, formalistic and box-office oriented films, there is hardly any creativity and imagination from individuals anymore. Hardly, we have a project to enjoy that gathers a completely new perspective or view on an already established film franchise. Especially Star Wars failed at this since George Lucas left.

You know what I don't like? Art that feels computer generated, safe, and incredibly predictable or foreseeable. It doesn't dare to do something new. In fact, Ahsoka cannot be called Art. Because Art gives new or deepens already established perspectives. Ahsoka feels ultimately bland, George Lucas his Star Wars created a world that was hectic, with a lot of strange beings and things, and those six original films may be controversial, but it always felt new, fresh, and original every time a new episode hit the screen. What Ahsoka does is expanding the galaxy, but he didn't just expand it, he redefined it. Especially with his twists and turns that revolutionized cinema forever. He created a whole political system that worked, THIS IS CREATIVITY.

Ahsoka has not the magic, that George Lucas his films had, it does not feel fresh or new, it feels different, but not like Star Wars. George Lucas had the Power to make the films feel fresh and new from a storytelling perspective, but the Universe still felt like the hood old Star Wars. It's magical, and you notice that THIS is HIS Vision, and he cannot do it differently. He does not need to try to recreate the magic of the Original Trilogy, he simply does it because it's in his mind.

So we know that Ahsoka cannot replicate the feeling or do something new, so what now? What should Disney do?

I believe they shouldn't try. All of these characters, planets, ships, creatures, things, came from the mind of an man which had a Vision, and that man no longer wants to have anything to do with the Work he once made. All he wanted, is already told. The main stories of the Prequel and Original Star Wars works will live on forever as great magical tales about tragedy and redemption, but that's it. That's the story.

I regret watching the Star Wars works of Disney every time, because it makes me realize how artless, passionless and money-oriented they are. They only are being made for the sole purpose of making money. This is not what Filmmaking should be about.

An interesting, still relevant take on the nature of human beings. Alex is a rapist, he's a man which desperately seeks for violence and terror, these things keep him go on in life, and during the first half he makes it clear that he feels no regret pursuing these acts of violence.

The portrayal of Alex and his friends is terrifying, there are no morals for them, and watching the singing in the rain scene feels not right and hard to get through, because it shows everything and just goes on. It doesn't want to end. It feels extremely uncomfortable, and because of this it's the most important scene of the film. Because this scene gives us not only information of what Alex pursues as normal, it gives us an idea and lets us as viewer feel the impact.

There's only one thing that Alex loves the same same such as chaos, and that is Beethoven. So, the government takes in their part, and try to manipulate Alex into seeing his actions as mistakes.

Alex sees the clips of war terror with Beethoven compositions playing in the background, and he suddenly is more than frightened. He begs for them to stop. Because his mind simply can't comprehend something so evil with something so pure.

And that's the turning point. There's to kinds of interpretations from here on. The first one is, Alex learns what he does is terrible, and suddenly he seeks out to stop it. And the second one is, that Alex already knew the whole time what he does is terrible, but his obsession with terror and violence does not stop him.

In both cases Alex regrets what he has done. The manipulation worked in that case. But Alex didn't self reflect, the government forced him to see how terrible the things are he had done, so the seed that was planted, has no place to grow. It was never his own motivation to stop.

And that is the point of this film. They stopped him from doing these horrible acts eventually for now, but he still thinks about the horrible things, his mind still is overstimulated with acts of violence. And eventually, one day he'll return to do horrible things.

As far as I understand is, Kubricks point is, you can stop a man from doing the things he wants do to, but deep down he'll still think about it, and deep down he still wants to do all the horrible things, because it is in his nature, it is his being to be that way. Alex can change, but it needs to be his own conscious decision.

An film that tries to balance out humor and leaving social criticism in the minds of the viewers. Barbie falls flat with its criticism not only because it feels flat and out of place, but most importantly unnatural and unimportant.

Why does a film about a female toy that kids play with need to comment on feminism. The use of feminism is to give a woman the right to choose for themselves and to be what they want, for example no woman nowadays should be a housewife if they do not want it to be. There are still current problems such as loans, the pay gap shouldn't be a thing, that is where gender equality is important, but Barbie gets it wrong and simply criticizes the mental state of being a woman and having it hard in its own life and still try to cover it up and being controlled by men. While I know that this is a problem in some cultures and countries, it is not the ones that people watch this film in. And Barbie definitely doesn't means it in that way.

Ken plays the stereotypical men, he wants to rule and fulfill himself in his life, and he searches for meaning. His character development ends with him needing to let go of Barbie to truly find himself, and Barbie says that he wasn't created only to be Barbie's boyfriend, but truly, he was. No one bought a ken toy without a Barbie toy, so why can't we let the toys that girls play with, be toys they play with?

Barbie sees the Real world as an issue because she thinks it only gets controlled by men, but she doesn't see that barbie land is a place which has a woman dictatorship.

I was prepared for an fun time with laughs, but was rather left devastated by this film, because it tries to criticize how we treat feminism and gender equality, but then it gets it wrong, and finds problems where they is none. It rather comes across as the message, woman are good, men are bad. This is not the type of film that would inspire a little girl to be something special, this is the type of film she doesn't even understand or care for.

Oppenheimer is a film that does what it wants to do amazingly immersive. The first part is an character study, the second part dwells around the trinity test and is shot in an kind of eerie almost horrific way, the soundtrack makes the trinity test even more horrifying, and the third part is a court drama. I was fascinated by the character of Oppenheimer and the chemistry and physics behind the bomb in the first two parts, I wanted to learn a lot more after every scene, but the third part left me cold.

The whole build-up to the detonation was heart-pounding, Ludwig Göransson's score builds that tension so high, I was scared for that bang and shockwave. But there is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.

The world since then never was and will be the same. The film has two or three scenes after the detonation that give off that feeling of desperation, guilt and regret, but not enough to really empathize or understand Oppenheimer. The scene with the stamping foots is breathtaking, but it's not enough.

I wanted to feel the catastrophic natural effects the bomb brings within, I wanted to see how horrifying a detonation is. But Nolan doesn't understand, it's not the fire that's horrifying, it's the consequences on the ground. The people, the animals, the plants, everything gets vanished or horribly devastated in seconds. And even Hours, days, months later, the ground and people do not recover, it gets even worse. Horrible pain surrounds the whole explosion Radius even months after it's detonation. And it expands through the wind.

After my viewing, I had a scene In mind. A young mother is bringing her child to school, it's her first school day. The mother and daughter are happy and smile, they talk about daily things they need to do. Then the sirens start, and people start to run away and scream, and nobody knows what is going to come now, the daughter sees the fireball in it's glory, high and bright, she looks right into it and is amazed by it. It's coming closer towards her, the sound gets louder and louder as more the shockwave and fire approaches. They try to run away, but this is there end. There's no place to hide. Then there is another boy which tries to run away, he's more away from the explosion, and has more time, but still the fire gets him, he does not die, he is on the ground burning down, waiting for death. This is real, and it is horrifying.

This is the moment where I realize I don't really care or wanted an courtroom Oppenheimer story, I wanted an personal story about the Father of the Atomic Bomb.

The courtroom part, is an hyper-realistic representation from the world of politics. Nolan could've dived even deeper into the nature of every character that sits there. Which role they've had, which strategy the followed. Some stand beside Oppenheimer, some against him. Some just needed to protect themselves or were forced or convinced to be against him. Everyone with their own background and own reasoning. Just like in real life. And you can't escape that when you're important. Even when you just want to be a physician. There's only one person who could escape that, Albert Einstein.

The switch from color to black and white makes the whole picture even more immersive, and delivers a story that is not one-sided, but rather seen from one more perspective.

But I didn't really care for the Strauss and Oppenheimer Relationship. It's necessary, but it should've been just a tool to deliver what problems the creation of the bomb brings within, like political conflicts, feuds, arms race, and many more.

The scenes I love, are the ones which dwell around the bomb and the consequences. The eerie horror feeling in the trinity test, the aftermath of the bomb.. there's so much greatness. And what it does right for me, Is Nolan at his best.

While I understand Nolan's approach, it's not for me. I still see what is great about this film, but I expected a very different experience. I wanted it to be more personal and intimate.

While the Action in Dead Reckoning is crazier than ever, the story is only told through blank long dialogue. The Villain feels incredibly unreal and unnatural, his character did not do enough for me. There were barely any motives beside the stereotypical I want to rule the world.

The AI part falls flat, it's an complicated assumption to say that the AI is scared. Because if it is artificial, how could it develop feelings? And if it has some, why can you control the world with it? Does it not act through it's own sense when it feels things? And why even assume to know when an AI is scared or not. That point sticked with me, and the film unfortunately doesn't craft an technical explanation for the AI.

Tom Cruise stunts single-handedly safe the movie for me. Without it, I wouldn't have liked it, but he believes in true action and I love that. I waited the whole movie for his hill motorcycle ride, and while his stunt does not disappoint, the editing does. Cutting between his once in a lifetime stunt and a dull dialogue scene in the train does not work for me and takes you out of the tension.

I understand that this wants just be an cool action-flick, but Rogue Nation and Fallout also were just cool action-flicks, but they were consistent and hold the tension during their whole runtime.

Babylon is a film that perfectly finds the middle point between comedy and drama. This is a story about the history of cinema, especially how cinema further developed after films with sound evolved, and not gonna lie i didn't laughed this much in all of my eighteen years. That scene where they make a sound film for the first time had me laughing so much I couldn't breath. I thought about that scene for days.

This film has many various things that it does great, the actors are doing there best, the humor had me laughing the whole night after seeing it, the score gave me goosebumps, the whole 1920s glamorous Hollywood setting is incredibly grand and epic, but most importantly is what this film is about.

It's about passion, the love for films, people were going crazy during the filming of those movies, they scream, they laugh, they cry, in those moments, you really feel that nothing else matters, besides doing that film. All things in their life suddenly doesn't matter, only if the film will be worth it in the end. That sunset scene of Brad Pitt's character Jack Conrad, is pure cinematic magic.

There a dialogue where a character summed up says that no matter what happens next in your life, the films you did will be there forever, a child in 50 years could see that film and you could be his inspiration. He'll look up to your face, even if you took your last breath way before he breathed his first.

That dialogue, that is what ultimately cinema means to me. And especially for me, someone that maybe sometime wants to be an filmmaker, it hits hard.

I love everything about this film, during that final scene every film that I've ever saw flashed before my eyes.

Hollywood is portrayed as a dirty and corrupted place, but on the other hand also the most magical place for movies in the world. It becomes a double sided sword, that can be inspiring and magical, but also cruel and dirty.

Babylon is a portrayal of how great and magical cinema can be, while the film itself is great and magical on its own. It's wonderful.

The Flash tries to combine many centuries of dc film history and it does not accomplish it's goal of creating an epic feeling and an higher sense of the multiverse.

Zack Snyder's DC films felt more grounded, from the picture to the music it all felt dramatic. His characterization of Batman and The Flash in the Snyder Cut had a way more dramatic take on character. Michael Keaton's character in Tim Burton's Batman felt dark but also a little bit comedic at times.

Andy Muschietti brought those characters back without staying true to their ideas and motivations, all of the characters feel different and at the point where we met all those characters we feel that we missed a long time of development surrounding them. It didn't feel like we watch them develop, it felt like they developed and this is the end of the arc, but we missed the phase of development. Especially Keaton and Affleck felt that way to me.

Directors colliding is worse than the multiverse colliding. Different visions of characters never find a middle point. There's a vision, and that vision only sticks in the mind of the creator.

Seeing Michael Keaton fully covered with cgi, or General Zod appearing without any real reason that supports the story other than fan-service, the same with Wonder Woman and Supergirl. None of those characters didn't needed to be there.

Most of the CGI looks horrible, shots look unrealistic and unnatural. Even if the director says that the VFX intentionally looks that way, it still feels clumsy and unappealing, it feels unnatural, and it does not fit most of the characters, especially General Zod and Batman, they should look and feel natural and gritty like in their previous appearances.

This film proves that fan-service and cameos alone doesn't make a film good. Without connection to the viewer, there's nothing that makes the film resonate.. I felt nothing, because this is all based on nostalgia, playing Michael Keaton's theme song for twenty times doesn't help, the nostalgia has no effect on me.

Flash's character arc in this film could be an well-made stand alone story with great emotional impact, because this is about loss, it's about trauma, but the writer choose to focus on the humor, on the nostalgia, on the action, and not on the theme or the plot.

If this film came out ten years before, I probably would have thought this is cool, but the concept of the multiverse has now been done hundred of times already and superhero-movies are oversaturated on the film market. People that seek out for a fun action time and turning their brains off, could be enjoying this, but as someone that seeks out for quality cinema, this isn't for me.

I was looking forward for the Idol. Before the first trailer released, the first shots of the show that The Weeknd Released were amazing, and as one of the greatest musical artists in the industry I had hope that he would make something that will be completely different und unique in it's style and storytelling. His music videos from After Hours and Dawn FM build an mysterious and creepy atmosphere that is underlined with heavy symbolism and meaning.

After Hours deconstructs the concept of loneliness and hedonism, pleasure is a central point and it shows that the wrong person could lose himself in the lights of vegas, problems are tossed aside and pleasure from alcohol, drugs, girls, are the only sources of happiness. Things like love, empathy, and humanity, are missing, and so the character realizes in the end, that he has only that, and he realizes he's a psychopath. He's filled with nothing, but emptiness. And that leads to Dawn FM, this whole album conceptualizes dying, and the belief In nihilism, that nothing really matters, It's the realization that he is, and always will be a bad person.

All of his discography, Trilogy, Kiss Land, Beauty Behind the Madness, and the two albums I mentioned made it clear that The Weeknd is a musician which does an amazing job of incorporating his crazy mind with high production value.

But the Idol has nothing to convey. I don't see what Sam Levinson and The Weeknd want to tell with this show. I watched two episodes from now on, and I still don't know what the approach is, other than that I'm disgusted and bored i felt nothing, the story seemingly has no approach.

The Idol strongly Sexualizes it's main protagonist, Jocelyn, played by Lilly-Rose Depp. She's a good actress, but her role is just a show-off character, she has no real character with a story or a goal, she doesn't convey any human emotion through her development in this show. Why does she want to be together with a man that is abusive?

It doesn't make it better that she grew up with an abusive mother, because psychology and manipulation is much more complex than that. Just telling that her mother hit her, is not enough to understand nor empathize her.

The Weeknd should stick to telling stories through music, he tried to play a character that is creepy and intriguing, but his acting felt unnatural and cringey.

I believe somewhere in this mess, there could've been a show that deconstructs the being of Jocelyn and why she wants to be with a man like Tedros. All of the shows content is about intimate things, there's nothing else going on. There's nothing consistent the show says. It has no voice, it falls silent.

This is a motion picture that dears to be colorful, abstract and over the top. From scene to scene every expectation of what could happen now is subverted, the plot not only connects things that the viewer has already forgotten about, the way the animation shows it's context is ambitious. And I thought the first one was ambitious, but this takes the animation to another level.

I remember seeing Into the Spider-Verse in 2018, with nobody else in the cinema with me experiencing it. There wasn't a single soul in my town that was interested in seeing that film. And they missed out, because It turned out to be twisted, funny, full of references, and in general a great spider-man story.

Across the Spider-Verse doesn't come close to what Into the Spider-Verse was. It's already miles ahead of what It did. These writers crafted a story, that is so intense and conflicted, in that last act I was on the edge of my seat, the tension was so huge and the whole situation the whole dealt with was so bizarre, shocking and unimaginable. It felt unreal.

Not only is this an overstimulation fest for me as a Spider-Man fan, It left me thinking about a point that the movie deals with intensely after the second act, Is it responsible to want to save someone you love, even if a whole universe could get destroyed by it? I don't know If it's right, the conflict it creates with Miles and Spider-Man 2099 also conflict's me as a viewer, which side is going for the right decision.

The whole concept of the multiverse in this film is so twisted, spot is a man that miles threw a donut at when they left the alchemax lab in the first movie, who could've guessed that this would be the writers decision for a backstory of a multiversal nightmarish creature that could destroy multiple dimension. And later we learn that miles wasn't supposed to be bitten by the spider, and that happening, destroyed a whole timeline where now a Spider-Man is missing. This whole concept is so clumsy, and I love it so much. It doesn't take itself too seriously, but when it does, It's so good. That final scene with the prowler is so incredible Intense and almost scary.

What ultimately makes this picture stand out and is that it has two plot points that we follow through the story, and both conflicts have the same tension. This whole situation we see, is conflicted and twisted, Every main character in this story wants to achieve something different, and I cannot wait to see If the writers will make this story even more bizarre and twisted.

The score of this film breaths the spirit of Vangelis. The music echoes the film itself, twisted, bizarre and epic. It's a different kind of soundtrack, not the classical superhero movie music trope. It sounds mixed up, Every character, and every scene setting has their own fitting theme.

This film feels like the center of Spider-Man films, and even if it's just some little silly spidey animation film, somehow it's an deep-dive on the nature of fate, and our will of denying It, not accepting the reality.

An film that released in 1982, and still is, and always will be, relevant. Blade Runner is timeless, it can be almost counted as a warning for the technological opportunities of humanity. If we, as a species, create beings that should, work like us to serve the growth of industrial society, why are we angry when those beings start to think and act like us? Whose fault is it?

Blade Runner deals with that question. And it deals with it masterfully. Every single one of those 4 Replicants wasn't necessarily a bad person. They're not typical antagonists. They are just people, who want to live more. And they have the right to be upset, why should the products we make be failures, If this would happen in real life, we would be the failures, because we lost all of our sense of moral and empathy and gave and took the life of a sort of new species.

The arrogance of humanity has made Los Angeles how is it portrayed in this film to what it is, it's all about capitalism, and even if we aren't where Blade Runner thought we where in 2019, we get closer to that vision within every year that passes. I'll give the climate fifteen years until it reaches a point where rain is a daily-thing.

It's interesting and kinda sad how a man can love a woman, that is not even a real human-being. Rachel has the shape and she physically feels like a woman, she conveys emotions out of her, but she simply isn't, everything she remembers is from a different real human being. I think the question if it is justified for a man like Deckard to Kiss and Love an replicant, really interesting.

The only thing that mostly matters to human beings, is being real. Living in the real world or being a real person is important to us, that is what gives us faith in religion and spirituality, and if that Idea of realism gets torn apart, and everything you believed is real for your whole life is suddenly fake, just some wires, electricity and implants, you can't cope with that surrealism. Rachel embodies that surrealism, her reaction when Deckard tells her that he knows her memories more detailed than she knows, her whole view of life is uncertain. Sean Young portrays the emotions of Rachel even just with a subtly tear or look profoundly.

But Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty.. he made himself immortal with this role. Forget about everything that I mentioned, even If the plot and Ideas of the film would be just half as good, that final monologue from Rutger Hauer changed my life. Even the worst replicant still has the ability to show empathy, and see life as a gift in his last moments, no matter how horrible or terrifying it was. It is special, how much life means to a single individual. After a moment passes it is just lost in time, forever.

I love Blade Runner. I love the atmosphere, the Idea of a over-industrialized capitalistic world, Vangelis soundtrack, the consequences of empathetic replicants with feelings, but most importantly, that it teaches, that life is a gift.

Vertigo is a prime example that trauma truly never leaves the mind of a human being. It's a film that strongly depicts the affects that a man could have from failing in his job, and the obsession that this failure brings within.

Yes, Vertigo is about obsession, but Scotty's obsession with Madeleine is not because of love, it's because of the trauma he was left with, it is because of the feeling that something is amiss.

There is a scene that is very telling about Scotty's character, when he tells Midge that he believes he can overcome his acrophobia by getting used to height a little bit at the time. He is a man who believes in logic, who believes that traumas can be healed, that the mind is stronger than what we believe it to be.

During the trial scene the judge statement resonates very negatively when he says that it was his lack of initiative that killed her, that John did not try hard enough to save her, that he did nothing.

This acts as a trigger in his mind. We see Scotty's expressions changing. He knows he tried and he feels something is amiss. This is the start of his obsession with Madeleine.

It will be very simplistic to believe Scotty is obsessed because he loves Madeleine. He feels something is wrong, deep inside he knows something is wrong.

This is what Hitchcock does, he plants a seed and let it grow. The seed is not the obsession, the seed is the doubt he was left with when the judge tells him he did nothing. Let's remember that in the first meeting with Elster, John tells him she should consult a professional, that he cannot do anything to help the situation. This first encounter act as a counterpart with the trial and the judge's statement where he claims that a professional detective would have referred her to a professional. Scotty knows he has been professional, and that he tried everything. He is confused, he can feel he had been played. See the change of his emotions during the statement, he is upset and we feel upset too because we know he tried. We are left confused as well. The seed further grow when Elster talks to him after the verdict and conclude by saying they cannot understand, you and I know who killed her. Let's remember Scotty is pragmatic and does not believe in fables. This will reinforce his feeling that something is amiss. And it does indeed, the nightmares start, like a vertigo a feeling of uncontrollable emotional whirlpool. His brain is working hard trying to make sense of it all.

When manipulated, it is often difficult to pin point that feeling, we know something feels wrong but we cannot explain it. This is why Hitchcock is a genius, yes, a great director, movie maker, but he knew about human nature and psychology. Here the vertigo is also about how one feels when manipulated, how one feels after being manipulated.

We are left in a state of confusion, in a whirlpool of confusing emotions, like a vertigo. Today we speak a lot about victims of narcissists and how those people are left feeling, this is exactly what John is feeling. We also speak a lot about how trauma triggers past traumas, this is exactly what this movie is about. Madeleine's suicide triggers his past trauma and generates PTSD. The feeling of doubt triggers Scotty's PTSD symptoms resulting in his obsession. His brain wants to understand. Because this is how the human brain works, it will obsess over something until it makes sense of it.

This is a movie about human psychology and the humain brain.

There was a time, when dystopian future, robots and artificial intelligence's where far away. In the last twenty years we came way more ahead to that concept, first we had Siri, then we had Alexa, and now we have ChatGPT. The mind of beings now can exist in forms of hardwares, just the body misses, one step further and we're exactly where this movie starts. Or, are they even beings, when they were made to be the way they are?

A. I. Deals with that idea interestingly for the first hour, David is an replacement for a family that has lost its original son, he's a replica of the previous human being, programmed to feel human emotions, and we see the family and the company get upset, because he exactly does, what they programmed him for. He feels.

We need to question why A. I.'s are getting made in first place. They get made, because they are means for the purpose. They are born with a reason, to serve either society or an human individual, even if it's some obscure reason like pleasure. David is not like that, David was made only for experimental reasons. And so, he questions what, or who, he is, and what his purpose in life is. Just like an ape starts to question what his nature is when he grows up in an house full of humans. They start to question their differences to us, and then, for us, they turn insane, but in reality, it is their nature. We would also question why we are differently treated. In fact, we do that in many realistic aspects, especially in gender equality, woman are upset because they don't get paid as much as the men. And it is their right to, but when it comes to things such as animals, or robots, people think it's their fault.

That's the problem with artificial intelligences. Why should we give them feelings and human emotions, when they were only made to serve society? Isn't it crazy that some people, could bound more to technology and artificial beings, than to real humans? That would change our moral compass and definition of being human, forever.

We can not replace humans. When you love someone, you may be thinking that their looks matter, but in fact, that is only a facede. When an loved one is gone, you start to realize what really mattered. A human mind cannot be replaced, and only the one who belongs that brain to, can use what is in there. After their life passed, all their thoughts, dreams, and memories will be vanished. Only a fragment of that will remain in the memories of other people. When you love someone, you don't only love the time you spent with that person or the laughs you have with them, you love the human being as a whole. That means, you also love the bad things they bring with them, for example when they annoy you. And David, simply is none of that. He acts kind, he acts lovely, but he's programmed to be that, and simply, he's not who their son was.

A robot, no matter how many advantages they bring with them, can never replace a human being, even if they're horrible beings, they are a product of nature.

This movie deals with the concept of Artificial intelligences greatly. Especially the first hour and the last hour is an fantastic family drama that deals with all the topics I mentioned and arises a lot of questions and problems of these beings.

Volume 3 cuts back and forth between rockets backstory and the premise of the story, saving rocket. While rockets backstory is hauntingly depicted and gruesome, it fails to hit me emotionally.

His backstory could've been summed up in an great 10-minute opening montage, and I've would've connected with it much more. The way how it is edited takes me out of the moment and the tension, it makes clear that rocket is going to be alright, because why else would there be this much of emotional build-up just for him to die on the table.

The first half does something really good with the humor, it turns serious moments or non-sense moments into funny scenes, marvel has tried this for a lot of times, but for the first time, it works. Humor is subjective, but for me it is the best when it comes randomly or not expected, and even the second half, has some gruesome humor, especially the monkey scratching off the woman's face.

The second half is not as good as the first one, what I liked about this movie was not the premise, or the idea, it was simply the execution of its moments, the heist in the first half was great, Adam warlock's moments were great, especially the one where he burns the ravager, but the overall plot, is typical marvel formula. While the first half lays back from that and just let it's moments flow, the second turns back to that and forces a climax out of the plot.

The climax could've completely been resolved on the counter-earth, it lasted so long and I reached a moment where I thought why should I be interested in seeing what happens now? The villain is going to be defeated, everything is going to be good, teaser for the next movies, happy ending. I know that is the marvel formula, but nobody can tell me that this is enjoyment, it's time to change that, the climax is the most important part of a movie, if that doesn't do something with you, then the movie simply is not worth your time. What would've been other Science-fiction classics without what they do in it's climax? It would've been an unfinished puzzle, that's the part where you gather understanding, or where the idea of a character gets clear.

The Actor of the villain embraces everything what Kang in Quantumania needed to be, while his character is predictable and formalistic, the actor gives what he can do with the script. There are moments where he gets insane and uses all of his power, for me, his representation of this character, is the idealistic Kang.

Volume 3 is fun. It's best moments are the ones where the characters are just interacting with each other, just some jokes and goofy action. Nonetheless this is a good ending for the characters of the guardians, and even if there's more to come, this will remain my ending for the characters.

While John Wick 4 points with extraordinary beautiful cinematography and some well-made action sequences, it fails apart at two key points when it comes to movies for me.

Firstly the plot. What is this even about? Who knows. People care for the action. But why do we then need to watch more than one hour of build-up for the action, you could watch the action without understanding what is going on, you don't need to know why these people fight, there is no conflict, and even if there is, it doesn't matter, because it has no consequences to the plot. The problem is that the plot is only sequenced trough talking, no visual language.

That makes the movie feel like a video-game. The action-scenes are the one you interactively play, and the talking scenes are just long cut scenes. This Formula works for many games, but you can skip those cut-scenes. If it's a good game, the gameplay will make your blood rush and you will not care for that dialogue pause. Best example is Hitman, you don't care for the story, you just want to play.

What is John Wicks Goal? I as a Viewer, gather nothing from the motivation of revenge, since the first movie the goal is the same, and it doesn't carry the weight of the first one. He does this all because of the last present his woman gave him, because of a dog. And while the film could dive into wicks character and analyze his psyche, and his former relationship to his woman, because she's the reason of this all happening, It rather focuses on an old friendship that now turned into an rivalry. I want to understand this man, and empathize with him, but the movie simply doesn't care about it's character work and the plot.

Secondly the Pacing. It takes too long for the action to begin, and when it ends, it again takes take long until it begins again. A Simple process. And if the story is not compelling enough, it's hard to get trough.

I feel like people are getting easier to please within every year and call everything a masterpiece. People seem to go crazy for mindless action without any substance. Without any conflict and emotion. It's nothing new. It's nothing we didn't had 20 years ago.

Yes, the Action is good filmed. The lighting is great, but what does it really matter? Is an good action flick really what we need more of nowadays. The genre is oversaturated. It has no weight anymore for me. Filmmakers need to try and do something fresh. I do not want to turn of my brain during a movie.

After one and an half hour during the movie passed, I asked myself an Important Question during the movie.

What was the intention of John Wick 4? It was not a Vision the director wanted to show us, because there is no vision. Most importantly, there are no emotions. Nothing to move the audience with. There is no art behind this. Even if it's well made, this whole movie feel feels like an ad.

So now, I know exactly what the intention of John Wick 4 was. It was Money.

Riz Ahmed's most powerful performance to date. It is easy to slip into his character, this film really makes you feel with him how extremely horrible it is to hear almost nothing. During most of the movie I was afraid, of this happening to me. And potentially, it could happen, to anybody.

Sound of Metal is the embodiment of what Cinema should become nowadays, the strongest movies of this generations are dramas, especially psychological ones. I feel like mostly we are obsessed with people suffering, why do we like watching people suffer?

Because it isn't happening really to us. Movies, If they are good, are making us feel the Impact of unnatural circumstances for a person, it is like training for real life situations.

Sound of Metal does a good job with that. It captures the emotions and feelings of this character, everything he is going trough, within such a short time span to intensely. The scenes where you hear the sound he hears, it hurts. The whole arc in the rehabilitation house for me, is him rebuilding himself, the intention is him accepting his situation, and even after he build himself up again and learned sign language, he doesn't accept his situation. He is weak, and turns to the expensive operation.

Turns out that the apparat made everything worse, and there is the wonderful end scene, where he hears a thousand voices and sounds from everywhere, and he just rips the apparat apart, and the awful silence suddenly, feels peaceful.

That end scene is great. Maybe, things like hearing loss are natural processes, and we should let them happen without interference. Accepting our situation, no matter how bad it is, or how much you suffer, makes things much easier than trying to find a way out. I appreciate the way this movie wants to deliver that message.