antoniokowatsch

This is less a documentary than it is a compilation of victim statements. I've seen a bunch of these so called Netflix documentaries now and they're all structured in the exact same way.

It focusses way too much on the victims and doesn't offer a deep insight into the mind and the inner workings of the perpetrators. It was OK to watch but I hoped for something more intellectually stimulating. Since i'm already quite familiar with the case and its intricacies I didn't really learn anything new from this documentary. But at least the cinematographic style was on point. So the visuals were pleasing, I guess.

This review will contain spoilers because they're necessary to properly analyze the movie.

This movie is the long-awaited finale to the previous superhero-themed M. Night Shyamalan movies "Unbreakable" and "Split". And storytelling-wise this movie sits somewhere in the middle. It's not as good as "Unbreakable" but it is better than "Split". Just to be perfectly clear about it, this is not exactly the finale I was envisioning.

It seemed rather slow in the beginning. Pacing-wise we were constantly teased with the foreshadowing of what is about to happen; "the clash" of the protagonists. And then when it finally happened I couldn't help but feel a little underwhelmed. I mean, the movie consists almost entirely of torture scenes. You could literally comprise the movie in one sentence like so; "the protagonists get tortured and then they escape and die".

And to be quite frank I don't quite get why that woman was torturing the protagonists at all. It didn't make any sense in my humble opinion. I mean, what exactly was the organization gaining by mentally torturing superheroes before killing them? Nothing. They could've just killed them right away and get on with it. That would've been more efficient aka economically viable than toying with them. It's almost a deal-breaker for me. I mean, it's not like I can't stomach torture scenes but if you're going to torture someone you have to make it seem believable. This just made no sense whatsoever. Sorry.

As I alluded earlier the end was a little disappointing in my humble opinion. Yes, it made more sense this way but I honestly thought that the final showdown of the protagonists would result in Dunn's son realizing that he has superpowers too ergo him becoming "Whispererman". I mean, he picked up a comic at the comic book store after his father died which was titled "Whispererman". I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking it. Or maybe M. Night Shyamalan's next movie is going to be titled Whispererman and that scene was just a foreshadowing of what is yet to come. Who knows?

Unbreakable is one of my favorite movies and I don't think this was a worthy end for the protagonists. I mean, I kinda started to like these guys and then they get killed. What the hell?!

I always liked this movie but after re-watching it I kind of changed my mind a little bit. I still like the movie but I'm a little bit more objective about it now. What this movie has going for it is quite obviously the beautiful landscape. It's truly breathtaking. Even after all these years it's still a magical sight to behold. And the film score was also pretty good.

However, certain aspects of the story don't make any sense after careful consideration. Take e.g. the scene where the feds discuss the "robbery" in the hallway. This scene added nothing to the story. It was completely superfluous. What's even worse is that the FBI didn't play any role in the movie. I mean, other than the aforementioned hallway scene they didn't seem to care about the lost money. Because if they did care, they would've investigated the matter immediately and by doing so would've interfered in some way. I kind of feel like this was a missed opportunity. I mean, why did they include a scene where FBI agents discuss the robbery if they aren't going to do anything about it?

Furthermore, I would also like to mention that the dialogue in many scenes is laughable and cheesy. Seriously. I mean, now that I'm older some of these scenes seemed completely ridiculous. The bad guys had monologues that sounded like they were written by a 12-year old. That black guy e.g. had me cracking up with his stereotypical "bad guy" monologues. It was funny, but unintentionally so.

Between the "rabbit scene" and the 40-foot cliff-to-cliff jump of Stallone in one scene, let's just say that this movie is a little bit unrealistic. Oh yeah, and don't get me started on the animatronic bats. I know that animatronics were pretty advanced in 1993. After all Jurassic Park's dinosaurs were animatronic and that movie came out in the same year as Cliffhanger. Just thought I should point that out.

Now, don't get me wrong. I still like the movie but I feel like I have to rate this movie more objectively.

Oh my goodness! I was a little hesitant to watch this movie seeing as I am not a big fan of romance flicks. But I have to admit, this one was way better than I expected it to be. This is one of the best time travel movies I've seen even though it completely disregards the scientific aspects of time travel and instead opts for a "fantasy"-explanation. You're definitely going to have a good laugh with this movie. The comedy is on point. And at the same time there's enough drama to balance the movie, so that it doesn't become a corny and cheesy flick. Just like the title suggests this movie isn't really about "time travel" per se but rather about time itself. Especially the end segment makes it perfectly clear that we, the viewers, should focus on "living in the moment" by truly embracing the "time" that we're given instead of focusing on "What if's" and regrets. It's a good message.

Overall it is a fairly unique and interesting movie. Whereas most time travel movies focus on the science, this movie goes the fantasy route and focuses more on the emotional aspects of time travel. And it worked out pretty well. You should definitely give this movie a watch. You won't regret it.

I was very skeptical of this movie. When it started rolling I immediately got the impression that this is going to be a "cheap" found footage movie. But the movie started to grow on me. It got more interesting as the movie progressed and toward the end I was pretty delighted to have watched it in its entirety. It's a good and quite thoughtful horror movie. With all that being said it focuses more on the psychological aspects of grief. It's a story about how a family coped with the death of their daughter. I'm not going to spoil anything but the end got pretty scary. The only problem that I see with this is that most people probably didn't make it all the way to the end. They probably stopped somewhere along the line because the movie made a bad first impression. I mean, I almost did the same thing. That's why my rating is a little on the weak side. This movie is missing a "hook". It starts out way too slow and weak to the point where people get a little too suspicious before the movie has a chance to properly develop and make it up to you.

Final verdict: don't let the beginning fool you, it's a solid movie.

The synopsis of this movie intrigued me but what I ended up watching left me speechless. And not in a good way. This movie is pure CGI-galore and they don't even try to hide it. There's nothing wrong with some CGI if it's done right; it's meant to be used sparingly. This movie consists almost entirely of CGI scenes.

This is one of the few movies that I had to walk out on. I just couldn't finish it and God knows I tried. It was quite literally an insult to my senses and intelligence. Storytelling-wise the characters weren't properly introduced and there was just too much fluff overall.

I guess one could classify this as a steampunk movie. But it's not a good one at that. They referenced highly advanced technology like the so called "quantum energy weapons" and yet they live in pretty derelict mechanical monstrosities that look like they're in dire need of an upgrade. I can only suspend my disbelief so much. Do you know how much energy is necessary for the continuous locomotion of a big city? A lot. The whole design of these "mortal engines" doesn't make any sense. It would've made more sense to create ships of similar magnitude instead of building gigantic monster trucks, because that's what these "mortal engines" actually are. Let's not forget the fact that our planet is mostly covered in water. That, combined with the fact that buoyancy assisted locomotion in an aquatic medium is more energy efficient than the locomotion on land.... and you'll understand why I loathe the movie so much.

The only way you can enjoy this movie is if you turn off your brain. Because nothing makes any sense in it. Take my word for it.

This movie is very special in the sense that it's so polarizing. You either love it, like I did, or you hate it. And I totally get it. I've been a huge fan of the original motion picture. As a matter of fact, I'd dare to say that it was one of the best horror movies ever made. With its unforgettable film score and the odd but artistic neon colored lighting. So, where does this movie fit in?, you might ask. Well, it is very different from the original and that's a good thing. It's different in all the right ways, so to speak. It is based on the original story but takes a different angle as the story progresses. This movie is much more "sexually charged" and grotesque. Some of the scenes are completely bizarre to the point where I was just thinking: "What the hell?!" And that's exactly why I liked the movie. It lingered in my mind long after I've watched it. Very few movies manage to do that.

As much as I liked it, I have to say that the film score was not very impressive. I'm a huge fan of Thom Yorke and his music but it wasn't the right fit for this type of movie. Especially toward the end, in the great "bloodbath" scene it just seemed completely odd that a slow and sorrowful score was accompanying it. Something more explosive would've suited the scene better. And overall I got the sense that the score was more or less hum-drum forgettable if compared to the score of the original movie, which was unique and weird ergo unforgettable. This movie's score was always lush and subdued even though this movie is, unlike the original, quite brutal and visceral.

Another minor critique that I have is aimed at the beginning of the movie. It just gave me a wrong first impression. The first thing that I thought when the movie started rolling was: "is this the right movie?" I was quite perplexed because the setting was that of a village in the first act. I don't know, it just felt odd. It makes more sense in the greater scheme of things but I don't think it was a necessary segue.

I can honestly say that it's one of my favorite movies now. That's how much I liked it. But it is super-weird. I'm self-aware enough to admit that. There will be a lot of eyebrow-raising panting, sexually suggestive dancing, satanic imagery, torture scenes, and gore. If this particular mix of odd elements is not your cup of tea you should probably give this movie a pass.

I'm a huge fan of the TV show so I had high hopes for the movie. Let's just say that this movie is not as interesting as you'd expect. Maybe they should stick to the TV show format cause this movie felt way too repetitive. It's almost as if they introduced alternate timelines just so they can get away with reusing footage to get to the 90 minute mark. The whole story feels like it should last 30 minutes but they stretched it out to 90 minutes. Not even Groundhog Day is this repetitive and that says it all. I'm very disappointed.

The acting was so-so and the concept was flawed. A xenobiologist who's never seen xenobiology before... how does that make any sense? And the whole thing with the L1 psychics is even worse. The very concept of psychic powers is unscientific to the nth degree. The laws of thermodynamics state that energy can't just be generated out of thin air (as it would be the case with psychic powers: changing other people's biochemistry remotely). It can only change its state. I digress, the show was pretty lackluster.

Wow, just wow. I'm totally blown away by this movie. Everything was done just right. The pacing was overall fast but did leave enough room for some quality character development every now and then. Aquaman's two arch nemeses (Ocean Master and Black Manta) were properly introduced so that new audiences got the opportunity to get a good idea of why they antagonize Aquaman. Overall, the movie explored three main themes; revenge, redemption, and forgiveness (in that particular order). I think it was done rather well. Aquaman used to be the butt of many jokes in the past. He was widely regarded as the "lamest" super hero but with this movie they managed to totally re-brand Aquaman's bad image. This can mostly be attributed to the strong cast and good script. I, for one, was very happy to see that Willem Dafoe was cast for movie. I'm still secretly hoping that he'll play the Joker in an upcoming Batman movie but that's another topic for another time. Towards the end the movie reached Star Wars levels of epicness. And I'm not talking about the new Star Wars movies.

The film score was rather modern and had plenty of synthwave elements. I'm a huge fan of these types of orchestral-fusion scores. Aesthetics-wise the movie had a very futuristic vibe; Atlantean guards who kind of looked like Storm Troopers, and the bright neon lights that illuminated Atlantis. It was very reminiscent of the first Blade Runner movie in that regard.

As a long-time DC fan I'm really happy with the movie. I have collected comics for over a decade from both, Marvel and DC. But truth be told; aside from the Batman movies DC had really produced mostly unwatchable movies lately while Marvel was pushing out one good movie after another. Now that I've seen Aquaman I remain hopeful that DC might turn it around and get their act together.

p.s. I don't know why the "professional" critics hated this movie. But I can tell you this much; don't trust the metascore. It's bogus. This is one of the most epic super hero movies. Totally recommended.

I have to say, this was a really funny and entertaining movie. However, as someone who knows the actual story I have some rather harsh criticism to share. First off I'd like to state that I'm half-black and that I know David Duke, just to give you some perspective. While the movie was fun to watch it was very inaccurate as far as the facts are concerned. There was no terror attack/mail bomb and the police officer Flip wasn't Jewish. He was a Christian. Spike Lee basically sensationalized the whole thing. If you don't believe me go and read the book that this movie was "vaguely" based on. I mean, the story in itself was interesting enough, there's really no need for sensationalizing it like this. Also, I like how they constantly joke around and ridicule the "conspiracy theory" that Jews are over-represented in positions of power. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the statistical truth. Towards the end the movie segued into video footage from the Charlottesville riot and other racially charged attacks. Nice appeal to emotion, I see what you did there. The only problem is; leftist extremist are actually more violent than the few right extremists who are insane enough to drive a car into a crowd. They are not just more violent but also legion. There are so many of them that it's quite scary. Especially in European countries like Germany, where I'm currently residing. The European Antifa is akin to a terror organization. They're highly organized and very dangerous. I'm not saying that racism does not exist. All I'm saying is that it isn't really a big issue anymore. Through constant perpetuation of these "lores" we're entrapping the generations to come in a literal prison for the mind. Spike Lee, just like Tyler Perry, are basically just exploiting black culture for financial gain. The only reason why they've gotten away with it over all these years is because they're black themselves. Overall, however, they've been a net negative influence on the black community. I obviously don't condone it.

The inverted American Flag at the end was straight up disrespectful, there's something called the Flag protocol according to which this act is classified as "flag desecration".

To conclude: the movie was good but don't believe everything that you see. If I didn't know it any better I'd call it a modern propaganda flick. When lies are being fought with lies you know that you've officially entered the post-truth era.

First off I'd like to state that this is one of the best thrillers I've seen thus far. It constantly keeps you on the edge of your seat with its ridiculously fast-paced style. Furthermore, the movie shines with its original story and unique execution.

Quick synopsis: The movie starts out with a psychological evaluation of some sort. A visibly/seemingly "mentally challenged" person is asked a couple of revealing questions. The whole setting of the scene was very reminiscent of the opening scene in the original Blade Runner movie. And just like in the Blade Runner movie the session gets interrupted. This time, however, by non-violent means. We later find out that the mentally challenged person from the first scene is the brother of the protagonist. Together the Nikas-brothers are a criminal duo of sorts. Connie Nikas, the older brother, definitely has a somewhat shady past as we later find out, when we get to see his handler. Right at the beginning of the movie the two brothers decide to take it to the next level with their next exploit. We as the viewers are there to witness the protagonists transition from small-time criminals to big-time criminals. Well, let's just say that things go horribly wrong and just like that everything changes. The protagonist finds himself in an impossible situation and goes to extreme lengths to right his wrongs. At the end of the day it's a really moving story with believable characters. The protagonist, Connie Nikas, is quite complex. He's a petty criminal who also seems to have his heart in the right place. The relationship with his brother is equally as complex; on a fundamental level he really cares about him. But he doesn't seem to think that involving him in his criminal activities is wrong. Well, that's until things go FUBAR. It is at that point that the protagonist finds himself in a neverending downward spiral as he embarks on his quest for redemption. The movie gets extremely emotional towards the end, with the totally messed up family dynamics. It's a really powerful ending. And the movie does come full circle as Nick Nikas finds himself in yet another session with his psychologist.

Acting-wise I have to say that Robert Pattinson delivered his best performance yet. It was extremely satisfying to see how well he performed his role. Truly mesmerizing.

The film score consists of very energetic synthwave music and perfectly compliments the movie and its pacing. Unlike in most movies these days, where the film score just silently plays along, this movie's film score is prominently displayed to the point where it becomes an entity of its own. It's loud and it's "in your face". Very unapologetically. I love it. As expected, the pacing is extremely fast.

What the movie does really well is humanizing the characters. All of the characters in this movie have flaws. Some are more obvious than others but no one is perfect. And that is very important. It adds an extra layer of realism to the story. Especially since most of the protagonists are criminals. Take e.g. Connie Nikas; although he made the lives of those that he encountered "much worse" you couldn't help but feel sorry for him. Because you knew that he was trying to be the good guy. Even though he failed, his intentions were "mostly" benign.

Furthermore, I'd like to stress how comical the movie is, despite its serious subject matter (which is criminal intent in all its diversity). There are some scenes that were so bizarre that they became extremely hilarious. Like the whole thing with the LSD bottle and the guard. It's still one of the funniest scenes I've ever seen. Whoever wrote that script must have a very peculiar mind (in the most positive way of course).

Final verdict: totally recommended. If you want to have a "good time" watch this movie (pun intended).

This movie is a romance drama with a twist. It may seem a little slow in the beginning but it is well worth watching. The protagonist, Reynolds Woodcock, is a prodigious dressmaker whose reputation precedes him. Right from the start it is revealed to us that Reynolds is all about his work. Thinking about dresses 24/7. He's so preoccupied with his work that he sketches new dresses even in his spare time (and during breakfast). All of that changes when he meets Alma, a young and strong-willed woman who works at the local diner. Despite the fact that Reynolds is somewhat of a quirky character he manages to hit it off with Alma, almost immediately. It is a really weird relationship, especially at first. Reynolds drew Alma into "his world" as soon as they started seeing each other. Which is not very surprising if you consider how obsessed he is with his work. During the first half of the movie, Alma is more of a muse to Reynolds than anything else. The dynamics of their relationship start to change after Alma confronts Reynolds and his numerous pet peeves. Or as she has put it "games". To her, a woman from the working-class, Reynolds peculiarities seem very odd and theatrical. She perceives them to be some sort of pretense. Reynolds gets furious about this accusation and the conversation devolves into a nasty diatribe. That, in essence, is what I'd call the "inflection point" of the story. It is at that exact moment that their relationship "changes" in the sense that Alma becomes more than just a muse as she stands her ground and demands equal footing. She realizes that the relationship has been lopsided in nature and is unwilling to "do all the work" anymore. Their relationship becomes quite toxic from that point onward. So does the relationship between Reynolds and Cyril, his sister. The toxicity reaches its culmination when Alma finally decides to "teach" Reynolds a lesson. She found a way to proverbially punish him and did so with resolve. At that point their relationship undergoes a final transition as they consummate it. The ending is disturbingly beautiful in the sense that we as the viewers get to peek behind the curtain. Right from the start I had a weird feeling that there's something off about their relationship and at the very end the movie confirmed my suspicion with the big reveal. We're basically fooled into believing that their relationship is highly dysfunctional when in reality they're, quite literally, perfect for each other.

Yes, I didn't really enjoy this movie. There's no point in sugar-coating it. I had my fair share of expectations for the movie because I enjoyed the first movie so much. Heck, even the second movie had its moments. But not this one. The story is pretty straightforward; the protagonists try to rescue one of their own while the "bad guys" try to find a "cure". If you've seen the prequels you already know the power dynamics between the "rebels" and the "establishment". If you haven't seen any of the Maze Runner movies yet I'd suggest you to watch the first one. It's still one of my favorite Young Adult sci-fi movies to date (and the strongest link in this trilogy). One of my main gripes with the movie was the fact that almost all the deuteragonists feel superfluous in the sense that they don't really contribute much to the story as a whole. The only exception here is Brenda.

The movie does have a lot of action scenes but isn't exactly exploring deep philosophical questions. In the first movie e.g. when the protagonists find out the truth behind the maze we're exposed to an interesting ethical dilemma. A dilemma that at least explains the motivations of the "bad guys" and why their actions could be justified. As a whole however this ethical dilemma isn't profound enough to act as a proverbial basis for the entire trilogy. It works for the first two movies but then becomes gimmicky in the third.

From a storytelling-perspective the movie makes 3 big mistakes that end up breaking the movie. The first one I've already mentioned; the fact that most of the characters in this movie don't really do anything that's "important" is bad writing. But let's not dwell on that fact. The other two mistakes are in my humble opinion even bigger deal-breakers. In the synopsis of the movie it reads that the legendary last city is protected/surrounded by the deadliest maze of all. Well, don't get too excited about it. Even though that's true we never actually get to see that maze. I know, I was disappointed too. Really disappointed. It would've been the perfect ending for this trilogy. If the movie ended with the protagonists making it through the mega-maze the whole story would've come full-circle. Unfortunately, that's not the ending that this movie showcases. And last but not least I'd like to criticize the fact that the "bad guys" find the "cure". Now, normally I would've prefaced this part with a "Spoiler Disclaimer" but given the fact that this movie is literally titled "The Death Cure" I don't think that's necessary. It's pretty obvious; one might say "too obvious". And that is a problem. It's as if they spoiled the movie deliberately. They're literally alluding to the ending by nonchalantly inserting the keyword into the title. And no, there are no earth-shattering plot-twists in this movie. Yes, there are some surprises here and there but they're not enough to save the movie. If the rebels had discovered the cure e.g. it would've made the story more interesting. That way they could've cured the infected and by doing so build an army to rival the obviously over-powered antagonists. It would've leveled the playing field and raised the stakes for the "bad guys".

This movie was really intense. I loved it. Granted, it goes to some dark places but it has an interesting story to tell. The only reason why I've initially put off watching the movie was the title; it sounded kind of boring (but wasn't). Yes, the billboards are an integral part of the story but later the movie evolves past them. So just keep that in mind if you're thinking about giving the movie a watch.

Storytelling-wise the mysterious billboards were introduced in an interesting way. Instead of revealing them right away the billboards were initially obscured from the viewer. This leaves viewers with some time to speculate as to what it might have displayed to get the police officer so riled up. Really well done.

The mother (Mildred) seems to be known by locals which makes sense; I myself grew up in a small town where word traveled fast. An "everybody knows everybody" type of affair. So it is authentic in its execution.

The police officers in the movie are clearly corrupted (at least the majority of them). And when the billboards garner the attention of the media things get heated. It's a proverbial declaration of "war" so to speak. One dedicated mother against the local police department.

At first Mildred seems irrational and unreasonable towards Willoughby. After all he seems like an OK guy. But as we later find out both are flawed characters with demons to slay. They just deal with their individual situations differently. The loss of Mildred's daughter has made her bitter. And I do get it somehow. She seems very confrontational even with the very people who try to support her in her quest. Willoughby on the other hand is faced with a hard decision because he kept a secret. A secret that literally changes everything.

Dixon, the second protagonist, seems a little "slow" but that doesn't absolve him of his "controversial" past. He has a track record of "racial discrimination" and the locals are well aware of his racist past.

On a side note: The scene with the dentist was pretty hilarious. You'll know what I mean when you watch the movie. I don't want to spoil it for you. It was quite unexpected.

There are some pretty interesting themes that are being explored during the movie. And storytelling-wise I liked that the characters were all multi-faceted. There is a lot of peripety in the movie. Especially with the whole Willoughby situation. And then there's of course the whole thing with Dixon's redemption. At heart it's a bittersweet story. It starts out rough around the edges but as the story progresses things become clearer and more refined.

To conclude: It's ultimately a story about forgiveness. Humbling experiences are the biggest catalyst for change; positive change that is. This in essence is the most prevalent theme of the movie and that's what I like about it. Too many contemporary movies go the traditional "revenge" route. And it is getting quite boring after a while. This movie is more profound. Yes, it is a story about revenge, initially, but then seamlessly morphs into something much bigger; a compelling story with strong characters. Even the characters with minor roles felt grand because they were authentic. No role was "superfluous". It was a perfect amalgam.

I don't think the movie is for everybody. It does go to some dark places so I'd say that it's probably for people who have a certain level of "emotional" maturity. But overall it's a fantastic movie.

Final verdict: highly recommended (don't let the lame title fool you)

This movie is a historically accurate depiction of the early days of World War II from the perspective of then-prime minister Winston Churchill.

The pacing of the movie is a little bit inconsistent; in the sense that the first 40 minutes or so were rather boring. The pacing was just too slow and not much was happening. I almost lost interest but then the movie started to shine with it's performances and the pacing adjusted itself accordingly. It was a pleasant surprise that totally changed everything.

Gary Oldman is a seasoned actor so his performance as Winston Churchill was understandably thrilling. But even though he was "unrecognizable" in the movie, thanks to the great make-up artistry, he still didn't quite end up looking like Winston Churchill, in my humble opinion. Winston Churchill had those big friendly-looking eyes. You just can't imitate that with make-up.

The calendar date overlay transitions were a really nice touch. They keep the viewer in the loop and provide a frame of reference. That way viewers are able to develop a good understanding of the time frame in which the events ensue. It works rather well with the format of the movie. Sure, it may seem a little gimmicky at first (that's at least what I thought when I first saw that transition) but it turns out to suit the movie quite well.

Quick synopsis: Churchill is underplaying the threat that Germany is posing until things start going south. In order to avoid a total FUBAR in Dunkirk he tries an unconventional strategic move to "bring the boys home".

Viscount Halifax tries to undermine Churchill's authority by asking him tough questions concerning the principle of peace. He believes that Churchill's stubbornness may worsen the already problematic situation. While it may seem like Halifax is the "bad guy" he's really just trying to do the right thing for the British people, just like Churchill. But both clash throughout the entirety of the movie because they have different perspectives. Halifax is the typical diplomat while Churchill is more of a "Britain first" type of person. Churchill considered Hitler too great of a threat to be reasoned with.

Most of the action happens in the war cabinet. And with Halifax as the opposing force to Churchill things get heated every now and then. Halifax believes that Europe is lost to the Germans and tries to play it safe by means of negotiation. Churchill on the other hand wants to "fight" until the very end. Being certain that negotiating with the Germans would be useless. Churchill is unapologetic and comes off as rude most of the time, but he has his heart in the right place.

Churchill's relationship with the King was very interesting and nuanced. It was one of the main themes that was gradually explored during the movie. Which kind of makes sense; as the prime minister you are obligated to meet with the King/Queen once per week. It was therefore executed in a very thoughtful manner.

Side note: if you plan on watching "Dunkirk" you should probably watch this movie first. You'll thank me later. Those two movies perfectly compliment each other and should be watched together in the aforementioned order.

To conclude: It was a great movie. If it wasn't for the slow pacing at the beginning I would have given it a slightly higher rating.

Final verdict: recommended (if you like historical biopics)

Quick synopsis: A young man who is working as a projectionist in the local cinema tries his hardest to become a detective. His favorite pastime activity is reading books about said topic; "how to become a detective". When the father of his romantic interest lost his watch he applied himself by trying to figure out who stole it. By a twist of fate he ends up being accused/framed for the crime. With the now blemishing reputation he has all the more reason to reveal the real thief.

The first thing that you'll notice is the movie's brevity. With a running time of only 45 minutes this movie is among the shorter ones (even for the silent film genre). It is a silent film so there is no actual "spoken" dialogue. If you're not accustomed to this type of genre it may take some getting used to.

The great thing with the film scores for silent movies is that they're continuous. Unlike in contemporary movies where the film score only kicks in every now and then to accentuate certain scenes or to blend in with the uneventful scenes. So yes, even though they're called silent films they're anything but silent. Quite to the contrary; they feature more music than regular movies. I myself have a rather impressive collection of projection reels of silent movies; the only problem being that I'd need a full-blown orchestra to accompany it. So unfortunately for me my movies are truly silent. How ironic.... I know.

The second half of the movie is basically the projectionist's daydream in which he "solves the crime". The billiard scene was rather hilarious. I wonder how many times they had to film those scenes to get it just right. Either that or Buster Keaton was seriously skilled in the art of trickshotting.

To conclude: The movie was actually quite enjoyable once the protagonists entered his daydream. But for me personally the beginning felt a little bit like a drag. If once considers that all the action happens in his dream it becomes clear why the first half of the movie should've been kept shorter. So yes, pacing-wise the movie feels a little bit slow in the beginning.

All the classical Sherlock Holmes themes were explored with the exception of Bartitsu. Sherlock Jr. wasn't a skilled fighter but rather the kind of fellow who'd run away from a fight, even in his dreams.

It's a decent movie but definitely not one of Buster Keaton's best. But that's just my personal opinion. Feel free to chime in if you think otherwise.

Final verdict: recommended (if you like silent movies)

First off I would like to say that I've deliberately put off writing this review. I was quite conflicted because of the overwhelmingly positive reactions that this movie managed to accumulate. I will preface this review with stating that it was a good movie but ... at the same time it felt like it was lacking certain storytelling aspects. But we'll get to that in a second.

Based on the fact that it is one of the highest grossing movies of all time some people made the assumption that it is a "monumental" superhero movie that is akin to "The Dark Knight". I disagree with that statement. The movie was fun to watch but it wasn't as "monumental" as the Dark Knight movie. Furthermore I'd like to point out that a movie's box office performance isn't necessarily a good indicator for its storytelling aspects. I personally like to believe that the movie seemed a little bit boring at times (especially during the middle segment). It only got really interesting when the villain finally showed up, which took some time. But then again, this is an origin movie so you have to expect everything to take twice as long as usual due to the limitations of the genre. And once the user is fairly accustomed with the origin story things can progress at a much faster pace. All origin movies have to struggle with this odd pacing. Which is also the reason why I'm not very fond of origin movies in general (despite their importance to new viewers).

The film score was amazing. Ludwig Göransson did a really good job composing it. It was super authentic due to its many ethnic elements and added a great deal of depth to the overall ambiance of the movie. The cinematography was also quite breathtaking. With those awesome aerial shots of the African landscape and the interesting camera angles. Like e.g. that one scene where the camera swivels horizontally as Killmonger walks into the throne room. That one was a pretty cool shot that you don't really see that often. Actually, now that I think about it the movie had a lot to offer but I simply feel like the story itself wasn't quite on the same level. Let me explain: Out of all the protagonists it really seemed like T'Challa was the least interesting one, which is pretty weird considering that it's a movie about him, the Black Panther. Killmonger and Okoye e.g. were far more compelling characters, just to put it into perspective. My biggest criticism however concerns a pretty obvious storytelling flaw; the lack of character development. Okoye was probably the only character that grew/"changed her ways" when push came to shove. The UN speech that T'Challa gave at the end made for the perfect ending but it also felt very forced to me. At no point did he even "consider" to metaphorically break bread with other nations. Not even when Nakia, his ex-girlfriend who he still has feelings for, suggested it. It just seemed odd for him to do a total 180 on a subject matter that he used to be so stoic about. So yeah, I would say it wasn't very believable.

A minor thing that I would also like to mention is M'Baku's demeanor. In the comics he's far more antagonizing. After all he's one of Black Panther's arch enemies. He definitely seemed a little too friendly in the movie (if you know the comics). And yeah, in the comics he goes by another moniker: "Man-Ape". The director however decided to simply go with M'Baku instead because it might be racist? I personally don't agree with that decision. Man-Ape isn't a racist name for a villain. Especially once you realize that M'Baku and his tribe are literally worshiping the gorilla gods in the comics. It makes perfect sense.

On a side note: The Black Panther suit received a well-deserved design-upgrade and looks much better than the one from the comics. It's very aesthetically pleasing with all those streamlined metal spike adornments. I dare to say that it's arguably the best looking suit in the Marvel CMU to date (the only contender would be the "Iron Spider Man"-suit but we have yet to see it on Peter Parker).

At the end of the day the movie was more like an appetizer. That's at least what I took away from it. I'm convinced that the Black Panther and Wakanda will probably play a bigger role in the upcoming Marvel movies. I'm also pretty certain that the sequels will be much better. Mostly because they won't be origin movies.

Final verdict: recommended

Yes, the movie maybe super-silly but it's so silly that it's actually really enjoyable. It's also pretty funny and one of my guilty pleasures. As the name clearly indicates it's loosely based on the Super Mario Brothers video game franchise. But don't expect the protagonists to just jump around like in the video games. When I said that the movie is "loosely" based on the franchise I was actually slightly over-exaggerating. The only commonality is the fact that both protagonists wear similar outfits and happen to be plumbers just like the original characters. Everything else was added to make the movie more interesting and I think it was done rather well. The whole concept of an alternate universe named Koopa-Manhattan is so ridiculous that it ends up making sense in the movie.

The first thing that kind of jumps at you as soon as the movie begins is the typical Brooklyn accent of Mario. It was hilarious and totally added to the overall flair of the movie (which was also set in Brooklyn). I really liked that. The Brooklyn accent is one of the most recognizable accents and unlike the Queens accent, which is slowly fading away, it remains strong to this very day.

The movie seems a little bit dated by today's standards but that can mostly be attributed to the fashion that is donned by the inhabitants of Koopa-Manhattan. It was very reminiscent of the 80's.

Furthermore the movie has a lot of memorable scenes and dialogues. Most notably the scene where Luigi asks Daisy out on a date. That one is hilarious and has actually become a pop-culture reference that is still used today. So it does have a lot of pop cultural importance.

A minor critique of mine is the absence of Luigi's mustache. I mean, c'mon... Luigi has a mustache just like Mario but hey... I guess you can't have it all.

The movie definitely has a lot of weird elements; from police officers in studded leather uniforms to animatronic rats, it's a whole lot crazier than you'd expect if you just read the synopsis. I also found it quite hilarious that the ultimate penalty in Koopa-Manhattan was "devolution". And yes, it's exactly what you think it is / what it sounds like. On a ridiculousness-scale this movie is a straight 10. So if you like bizarre movies this one is a no-brainer. It is very reminiscent of the original Total Recall movie in both the presentation and the setting. So that should kind of give you an idea of the flair that it exudes.

As I mentioned earlier the movie has a lot of memorable scenes and dialogues. Some of my favorite lines from the movie include: "If I make you idiots smarter you won't mess up this time" (Koopa) And the pipe-dialogue between Mario and Luigi: Both walk into a room... "Look at this. It's a plumber's nightmare." "These pipes haven't been serviced for years." "Must've been a nonunion job." LOL

All in one it's actually a really good movie, just for all the "wrong" reasons. It's not trying to be philosophical or profound. It's just a fun to watch movie. I mean, if you take a movie like this seriously the problem doesn't lie with the movie but well... you get the idea. I don't understand why some people hate this movie this much. It seems rather bizarre to me. It's a family-friendly and goofy movie that also ends up paying homage to the 80's aesthetic. What's there not to love?

Final verdict: recommended if you have a good sense of humor (and don't take the movie too seriously)

Overall I do like the movie. Even though many of the protagonists are what I would call "unlikeable" they are being portrayed in a dualistic way. We get to see them at their worst and their best. One good example would be Tonya's mom. Yes, she is a very cruel person but at the same time her motherly love shines through sometimes (like e.g. in the diner scene). On a fundamental level she does care but prefers to shield herself behind a cloak of phlegmatism and profanity.

Another thing that I liked was the movie's postmodern approach. There were a lot of scenes where the protagonists broke the 4th wall. I love that stuff, it makes you feel involved even though you're only an observer. Not many directors go this route because it's tricky to implement it properly. If yo do it wrong it seems gimmicky but if it's done right (like e.g. in Fight Club and the Deadpool movie) it's a real experience that you won't forget. Kudos for the execution.

A funny thing that I noticed; some of the protagonists call Tonya Tanya throughout the movie. And yes, although the names may seem similar their etymological origins are not; Tatiana -> Tanya Antonina -> Tonya

My biggest gripe with the movie was the message that it was sending. All the violence and abuse that Tonya had to endure from both her mother and husband, that's not funny. But the movie kind of makes it seem that way. With the way everything was shot the movie went a little overboard with the whole "gratuitous violence"-shtick. It was funny the first time but then became worrying as it continued. I mean, I get it. Hollywood is currently obsessed with the strong female protagonists archetype and there is nothing wrong with that. One of my favorite protagonists of all time is Ellen Ripley from the Alien franchise. But... , and this is a big "but", in this movie they should've just kept it real instead of simply going with the whole "this is normal to me"-narrative. It's not! Domestic abuse is a serious problem and it's not going to get solved by joking about it.

Another thing that I didn't like was the fact that the movie didn't really portray the intense rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan. If you're old enough to remember the "incident" you'll know exactly how intense their rivalry was. There were also other movies about Tonya and Nancy back in those days which focused more on the rivalry between them. I really liked those. For someone who doesn't know the backstory the "baton attack" would seem totally ridiculous and unbelievable, but considering the circumstances it's anything but. And that's where the movie falls short. It only focuses on Tonya and totally leaves out Nancy, to the point where people who are unfamiliar with the story would think that the "incident" was totally unexpected. But in stories of intense rivalry there is always that one person who's willing to go the "extra mile". Just like in the movie Rush where Niki Lauda foolishly jeopardized his health in a daredevilish attempt to win the championship. These things actually happen in the real world; people who compete at the highest level tend to have risk-seeking personalities (think professional gamblers and Olympic athletes who dope). It's a well-defined psychological phenomenon.

Final verdict: recommended (for it's entertainment value)

The movie is set in East Berlin in the year 1984. Back when Germany was a totalitarian state. The Stasi was in charge of spying on its citizens and that's exactly where the movie starts. The protagonist, Mr. Wiesler, is a seasoned Stasi agent who has had an illustrious career. So much so that he's even instructing upcoming agents in the practices of interrogation techniques. Another important task that Stasi agents were known for; their "interrogation" methods. Early on in the movie the protagonist gets assigned to a special "public figure". He himself wanted to get the assignment but as we later find out there were ulterior motives at play. Motives that concern his superiors.

Mr. Wiesler takes great pride in his job because he's really good at it. But as the movie progresses he has to reconcile with the fact that his current assignment is morally unjustified. Even though the protagonist is clearly meant to be the "bad guy" we are constantly witnessing the moments when his humanity shines through; to the point where we're able to empathize with him. He's a flawed character just like everybody else. Which makes the movie so believable.

Dreyman on the other hand is a good person but too many bad things keep happening to him. All of these bad turns of events eventually force him to step out of his "zone of complacency", to make a hard decision. With unforeseen consequences.

This movie is so powerful. It evokes so many emotions that it literally covers the entire emotional spectrum: anger, contempt, suspicion, deceit, humor, compassion, sadness, grief,...

It's ultimately a really sad movie though, with a lot of character development. The protagonist keeps indulging in the lives of the people who he's supposed to spy on. And by doing so he becomes a better person.

The ending was extremely satisfying to watch. Arguably one of the best movies I've ever seen. Everything came full circle, so poetically. I was not prepared for this. This is exactly what good filmmaking is all about. It's the full package. Even the setting is flawless; watching the movie feels like travelling back in time. That's how immersive it was.

Final verdict: supremely recommended (you're not going to regret it)

This TV show, as the title suggests, pertains to the fantasy genre. It tells the story of a young magician named Quentin and shows us how he copes with his new-found abilities. The premise of the series is quite interesting but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. As far as the ambiance is concerned I'm getting a strong Narnia-vibe with a side note of Harry Potter. That's pretty much the best way to describe the feeling of the show.

Storytelling-wise there wasn't much character development. At least none that felt natural (like that one episode where Quentin spends the entire episode in his head). It felt quite forced. And some of the characters didn't really make much sense. Penny e.g.: he was constantly a douche for no apparent reason. But then buddied up to the other protagonists as the story progressed (->forced character development). It would've been more believable if they explained why he antagonized them in the first place. Also, the fact that expulsion from Brakebills is a constant threat for every student. Well, let's just say that this is a quite ridiculous premise.

As far as the story goes I have to say that it was rather predictable. And no, I don't mean the "magical" anomalies that kept popping up in each episode but rather where the story was going as a whole.

Generally speaking I couldn't shake the feeling that this show was what I'd call the "ultimate nerd-fulfillment". The socially awkward dude turns out to be the "chosen one", gets the girl, somehow manages to befriend a lot of "cool" people, and becomes cool in the process,... Yeah, I think that's called psychological projection. The writer's intent is clear and does bleed into the script / book.

With all that being said I do have to give my compliments to the costume designer of the show. I am a little bit of a fashionisto so I do notice it when the costume designer does a good job. The festive attires in the show were quite marvelous. The same thing can be said about Marina's hairstyles. Whoever the hairstylist was, he knew what he was doing.

One thing that I would classify as a logical inconsistency is the fact that the teachers of Brakebills brace for some sort of magical war while simultaneously only admitting adults to Brakebills. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense once you realize that a magician can only achieve his full potential when he's honing his skills from an early age. But instead we get to see how a bunch of adult magic "noobs" begin to control their powers. Why wait? Why did they have to wait until they're this old? Once you ponder about this fact you can't help but realize that this is probably the biggest flaw of the story.

I know, I've voiced a lot of criticism but as a whole I wouldn't say that the show is bad per se . It just doesn't really have the "je nes sais quoi" that I'm personally looking for in a TV show. Because here's the deal; watching a TV show is a serious time investment. If a TV show doesn't blow me off my socks I give it a pass.

( Spoiler Alert: The next part contains minor spoilers ) As I mentioned earlier many of the explored themes were much too obvious. So much so that I saw miles ahead and already knew what would happen in the coming episodes. One good example is the "romance" between Alice and Quentin. I mean, it's not like Quentin had many options. It was a logical progression.

Final verdict: wouldn't necessarily recommend.

This is one of my favorite Western movies because of it's compelling story and characters. Butch and Sundance are outlaws that go way back. Their favorite pastime activity is robbing banks at gunpoint. Both of them have their heart in the right place but they just can't stop robbing banks because it's the only thing that they're good at. As they themselves have put it. Early in the movie we get an idea of how notorious the two are. Both are professionals and know exactly how to skillfully execute each robbery. Sundance is a quickdraw prodigy like no one else; both in aim and speed. Butch on the other hand is more of the strategist aka the brain of the operations. Storytelling-wise I really liked how both protagonists were introduced. It was on point, perfectly executed. More movies should pay attention to these types of aspects. Ever since I took Werner Herzog's masterclass on Filmmaking I realized how important it is to properly introduce characters (especially the protagonists) . I digress. The movie has a lot going for it. It has a fair amount of character development, good chemistry between the protagonists, memorable scenes and dialogues. It also has plenty of funny scenes like e.g. the dynamite scene.

Another thing that makes the movie so interesting is the fact that it's vaguely based on real life events. There's nothing quite like a good 'ole Western movie about redemption.

The main premise of the movie is quite self-evident: "Can criminals be good guys?". Well, Butch and Sundance sure tried to find out if that's possible. They are both self-aware enough to realize that what they've been doing so far is morally questionable. So, eventually they'll try to turn it around. If you want to know how the story ends you'll have to watch the movie I'm afraid. I don't want to spoil the movie.

The cinematography is superb and especially impressive once you realize how old this movie is. My favorite scene, cinematography-wise, is the bicycle scene. Very smooth camera handling, I wonder what type of dolly system they used.

Final verdict: highly recommended (it's an awesome movie with a lot of character. Even if you don't like Western movies; this one is worth a watch)

This movie is a classical "cannibal tribe" horror movie. It's not the best of its genre but it can stand its ground. The visuals were impressive; the contrast between the red body paint and the green vegetation was nice to the eye. The acting performances were inconsistent but nothing that would make or break a movie.

The main thing that I liked about the movie was the setting. It was quite belieavable. Especially in the beginning. Student activism is highly encouraged these days by the majority of colleges. It also served as a nice segue to the main part of the story.

Storytelling-wise there were some things that I didn't like. One of which was the abundance of "generic characters". When the students embarked on their trip the first thing that I thought was "well, that's a rather big group". It should come to no surprise that most of them were "killed off" in a timely fashion. Another storytelling faux pas was the abundance of cliches. Like the scene where one of the protagonists falls into a river. I'm pretty sure you can guess what happened next... it's one of the most overused movie cliches ever. The most obvious trope in the movie however is one that I'm not going to mention here because it would be a "heavy spoiler" (I will address it in the last paragraph should you be interested).

Overall, I think the movie was quite OK. The biggest critique that I personally had was the lack of truly memorable scenes. Most horror movies tend to have their signature death scenes. In this movie however most of the deaths happen off-screen which is kind of a bummer (for a horror movie). If you've seen the movie just ask yourself; "what scene was the most memorable?" And then follow it up with a _"how unique was it?" You'll quickly come to realize the veracity of my claims.

On a funny side note: the scene with the ants, although cleverly tied to the lecture at the beginning, had a slightly goofy subtext due to its similarity with the infamous "torture/bee" scene from "The Wicker Man". So yes, I did see what they did there, I just question the execution.

( Disclaimer: Heavy Spoiler ahead )

The biggest problem with this movie is the so called "Chosen One"-trope. It becomes quite apparent right at the start of the movie that one protagonist is "special". In the sense that she will be the only one to make it out of the movie alive. It's just too obvious, the movie doesn't even try to hide it. Quite to the contrary; the whole thing with the virginity ritual and the special body paint just further confirms this suspicion.

Final verdict: watchable but it's missing some pizzaz

This movie won't make much sense if you haven't seen "The Room" so I'd suggest you to watch the original first (if you haven't seen it already). It's also worth noting that the humor in this movie is consistent with that of the original. In other words; if you didn't like "The Room" this movie may not be your cup of tea.

With that being said "The Disaster Artist" was definitely one of the best movies to come out in 2017. It carefully touched upon various issues that Tommy and Greg had faced while filming the movie "The Room". It allowed us a rare glimpse at what the real story behind the movie was and what lead up to the making of it. Something that many people (myself included) have always wondered about. Some questions however remain unanswered. Questions about Tommy's origin, his net worth, and age have been addressed but not answered. Which I think is good; it's not really vital to the story behind the story. Plus, one might argue that it adds the little bit of mystery that every good story ought to have. I think it's a very well executed biographical comedy movie. Keep in mind that it's technically an adaptation of the eponymous book which was written by none other than Greg Sastero aka the guy who played Mark in "The Room".

As for the acting; I have to say that I was blown away by James Franco's performance. He did a marvelous job at depicting Tommy Wiseau. He got every one of his mannerisms down to a tee. 10/10

All in one the movie is incredibly hilarious. My facial muscles were literally hurting because I laughed throughout the entirety of the movie. That's how funny it was.

Final verdict: highly recommended (if you liked "The Room")