pascaloetterli

At this point I feel like I myself could have done it better. This was painful.

No, I don't want to be taught about income equality and slavery. France in 1790 must speak for itself, no need to explain anything.

The amount is modern day swearing makes the dialogue not better either.

We have only a limited amount of episodes and the backstories aren't a great addition because they only influence emotions against certain villains or sympathies for the heroes. There's just a high rate of come and go of different characters in short time. Depth outside of backstories would have helped.

The powerlevel is totally confusing. At one point characters are super weak and inept and at other way overpowered. The plot armor is just cringe at some point.

It was too easy to predict outcomes aside of just introducing the next level hero or villain. We had certain tropes already in the first installment of the animated adaption. Also, I hate to see the connection of predictability and skin color - which is maybe "en vogue" but for sure not helpful for the suspense or thrill.

I also cannot explain why this is for 18+. Not even kids age 14 can be too shocked or thrilled by this show and I know because working with that age bracket is my profession, expertise and experience.

For a mature audience, expand the amount of uncertainty and drama. Nobody should be safe and have several groups playing out their schemes. The villains are just cardboards but we know well from hundreds of vampire novels that there can be so much more facets to just being "evil" and wanting to destroy humanity and or earth.

The Castlevania franchise has huge potential, but this installment was utterly dissapointing.

First let me tell you that I am a Swiss living at the French border and every once in a while I am in France although it has been years when I was in Paris. I am also a guy who doesn't binge at relationship dramas in TV.

I happen to be a bit torn by how I should look at "Emily in Paris". Admittedly I watch it, admittedly I like the main character and some others and I have no problem with the acting. I am no actor and can't comment on that like so many critics seem to be capable of.

The show is good at evoking good emotions. They producers bring a lot of production value and show Paris from its very best side. The truth is, that even in my own family, it happens that people fall in love in Paris and having said, many other clichès are absolutely true.

To be honest, the sugary coat on the French capital is just the icing while below, life can be tough for many, if not most Parisiens. The criticism of the show being superficial is well understood and it can't be denied. But Emily in Paris isn't a social drama, it's a fantasy. I would call it a spin off of "Sex and the City", just in a different location with a different set of the Dramatis Personae. Maybe also like the next level of every teenage or coming of age show. Because it never wants to something else than being a lightweight romanticized drama it's got its place on the market and I am fine with it. It is escapism for certain people and escapism is one of the pillars of entertainment.

The cinematography, well, let me just tell you that I like to mix of day and nightlife, the awesome sets, the beautiful fashion, food, colors, backgrounds. Does it look like advertisment? At times it does and it is allowed to be advertisement.

The actors are all very beautiful, looks matter here a lot. My problem is the overacting at some part and that there is no room to expand on the sidecast. They are often just mannequins for the developing love affairs. There's plenty of room for improvement.

The plot makes you wonder about all the coincidences in the life of Emily. Often you pray that the next totally contrived and trivial move doesn't happen until it happens. The show is also pretty open when it comes to free love and affairs of all sorts. It may startle conservatives a bit (being a European conservative myself), but here in Europe I witness that kind of behaviour a lot. As already mentioned, it's merely Sex and the Parisian city.

Social media and communication is also a big part in the series and that makes it more real than an American picket fence tv show. The vibe of 2020+ is definitely for real and that might be reason why people watch it.

As a conclusion I'd say that Emily in Paris is kind of a guilty pleasure for me, even with all flaws I find it entertaining, inspirational. Easy on the eye and mind. I would give it a six but because critics are so harsh on the show I give it a seven.

Season one was great, would have rated it with eight stars. Season two was meh, worth six stars. The main problem of the series is that too much is put on the shoulders of Anna Friel. In the first season, Jason played an important role, but in the second season all side characters were strange, bland, predictable or in a horrible unpredictable. The usual problem with shows is the overabundance of plot twists nowadays and that shows need to be needlessly stretched in order to yank out seven or nine long episodes. Also, let's not forget the usual bashing of the rich and elite on the behalf of everybody else. It's very common, very boring and tropic.

Also the numbers of deaths, missing persons, incidents, shootings etc. Are irresponsible when it comes to realism. The main protagnist is just a wreck of emotions who somehow guesses the right conclusions. As said above: too much is put on the shoulders of Marcella. It must be said, that Anna Friel plays her character amazingly, it's not her fault, that Marcella started to annoy me.

One last thing is the bashing of the white guys characters in favor of "diverse" ones. That kind of stuff is really going on my nerves lately and I am myself part of the the non-white group.

Edgar Allan Poe called his short stories "arabesque", which means twisted, ornamental, catching. He wasn't the only one interested in horror and ghost stories, but his did prevail, HP Lovecraft and JL Borghes follwed, and I bet, Mr. Del Toro read them all.

Cabinets of Curiosities are far older and were a hobby for the rich and educated renaissance men in Europe. A collection of rare objects from all corners of the world, old and new. There was even a common sort of catalogue for collectors, which item the still had to obtain. Education also meant knowing the bible well and thus mythological objects were sought too, like the horn of a unicorn for example.

Now, we have to connect these two string together. I am pleasantly surprised by the result as a whole. We have a high value variety show just fitting the small box of the TV show length. Like an anthology of short stories, a group of talented filmmakers have to work with the narrative material, shaping each element with a personal touch and style. The directors are part of the cabinet, quite figuratively getting their own piece. Amirpour and Kent both made simple short stories into something with emotional depth.

I don't care about the wide variety of each part, but I do when it comes to politics. I just prayed that the latter was reserved for the first story. The sets, props, ambiente, light and photography didn't disappoint, it had movie quality. The acting, as far as I can judge was great too, as the bigger part of the scenes was standing on the shoulders of a single actor or actress. Familiar faces found themselves in different settings without being miscast at all but delivering a heartwarming performance.

This show is great and deserves more seasons! Fans into supernatural and ghost stories and suspensefully, yet ungory creepiness should watch this. It's fare more than a few spills of blood and scarejumps.

Why is BW 2021 woke? First of all there aren't any good men to see here. Guys are either stupid, antagonistic or outright evil.

On the other side there is the "Sisterhood" feeling which the movie even explicitly mentions. There were two men and around a twentysome women in the theatre. My young friend dragged me into it and I wanted her to be happy.

So, there I sat and I wondered who would make such an imbalanced type of movie? Having a strange idea of genders is one thing, but it was also about character development and character interaction.

Johanssons performance and storyline was fine, but that of her family far less so. There was no chemistry between the members at time although the story has a few explanations. I loved to see Rachel Weisz again, but I felt she lacked screentime. Florence Pugh is different generation and the youngest of the three. And I felt reminiscences of the usual teenage flick out there. Something I try to avoid in my spare time. It's not bad acting but I can't stand the mix of sassiness, sarcasm and negativity.

The whole movie was written in James Bond style. It had it all and there was no need for having superheroes in it, with just a few adjustments to the script. It was a Bond script in disguise of a Marvel superhero movie. Let's just add that there are a only a few cross references to other Marvel content. Bond movies have the disadvantage that they are both stereotypical and predictable. Likewise we get to see expensive sets and locations. The chase gets a bit old though after a while.

When it comes to style and editing, this is state of the art. It's all beautiful and well colored. But just as already stated: there are about one or two sets more than it's good.

To sum it up, it was at once entertaining but it also drained my nerves to watch anything like this in the future.

One last thing: in times of Covid, we're forced to wear masks. This contradicts movies in 3D. Yet, it can be hard to see anything with foggy glasses. The effects weren't bad but they were not needed either.

This one is for the girls.

This show is exactly what one can expect when Koreans adapt the zombie genre for the screen and more. At the end of this review I will tell who should see this and who should stay away.

First let's talk about the visuals. They are beautiful, haunting and bring a great mix of epicness and two person scenes. This looks like someone didn't need to think about costs and hence they overspent heavily. These large scale encounters help to immerse into the medieval Korean world.

I personally find the acting and mannerism of east asian actors a bit too suited for actual theater and it was at times difficult to discern who is who just from the many scenes that don't need a lot of dialogue and the vast number of actors. But the characters, good and bad are more or less fleshed out, albeit much less than in the "Walking Dead"

Unlike "Game of Thrones", this show does absolutely not feel multicultural. Instead we are shown an intriguing world with a lot cultural background. While the world building is great, the plot is fast and takes a lot of twists and turns in just two seasons. In comparison to the typical hollywood TV-show, the deroulement of the story is fast paced and feels almost crammed. The plot almost never needs to resolve itself by tapping into magic or a deus ex machina situation. Also, some care is given about social differences, justice and responsibility.

There is gore and violence but no sex. The thrill is helped by excellent camera work and intense lighting and sceneries. This is all cinema level action perfection.

The music, I can't talk too much about it, but it serves its purpose. The intro is great and after a bit of time you'll understand it.

When can you see this and when should you stay away? Being a zombie movie genre fan is a prerequisite. Being interested into an all Korean cast in and a medieval East Asian setting is equally a prerequisite. Violence and gore is displayed so don't forget about the PG rating. This is cool and a totally different approach to the zombie genre, give it a try. The intense plot and suspense will make you binge watch this fast.

Growing up in the eighties in Europe, anime robots like Grendizer and Mazinger among other Science-Fiction animes were a joyful childhood experience. Transformers came later and I was never very negative about Michael Bays adaptions, because I felt deep gratitude for anybody putting so much money into robot movies. Yet, Pacific Rim was even larger, felt more epic even it hat its own flaws too. You ask: why does this show deserve seven stars?

It does deliver great entertainment thanks to the storyline and the awesome graphics. From a narrative standpoint, the typical prodigal children plots are all over the place, which is an anime standard anyway as the show is for kids and the youth. There is always coming of age morals to find in such narrative structures. As an adult, this gets a bit old, but imagine you being a nine year old kid. If I am not mistaken, the show writers are American and they mix in two very typical hollywoodesque aspects to the plot: an apocalyptic world and survivalism. If Transformers meet Walking Dead in an anime, it would amalgamize into "The Black". There are quite a few aspects that will subtract a lot of suspense, which pretty much obvious after two episodes. On the other hand there is a lot of content possible and world building can be everything in the future.

The series has gotten good reviews so far and I am also positive about it. There is energy, potential and love for detailed worldbuilding and character development. We need to give this its deserved merits and the chance to continue!

I have watched almost every movie about the 2nd WW and I did study history, so much for my part. That said, there were a bunch of brilliant 2nd WW movies in the last two decades, most of which were either German, Japanese or US-American ones: Letters from Iwo Jima, Flag of our Fathers, Band of Brothers, Der Untergang, The Pacific, The Thin Red Line,...You name it! Inglorious Basterds was kind of special and it didn't want to be realistic. But Fury does and this movie has some resemblance to it. Fury is an action movie, which wants to show the darker side of US Troops in Germany. The heroes are anti-heroes, but not quite. Some fighting scenes are well made, but hell - if the Germans were fighting like that in the 2nd WW, they would have been beaten in weeks instead of years. The movie was a butcher fest in the best tradition of Rambo. The story and plot are forgettable to the point that, like other reviewers already pointed out, every stupid cliché about the Germans and their troops was featured.

The movie has good features too. The acting is good, although Pitt is IMHO not the best choice as the platoon commander - he and LaBoeuf were there for promotional reasons. New faces would have helped to de-cliché the celebrities and their roles. The camera work inside the tank, the lighting, the props, lots of great stuff to see.

If You need some patting on the shoulder that You have won the war or some of Your family has been killed by the Germans, sixty years ago, this movie is for You!

For me, it's one huge disappointment, when I see, what could have been manufactured with all those props and actors.

I watch at least two hundred movies each year, mostly while doing other stuff as well (reading, writing, playing). Because I was ill yesterday, "Her" got my full attention. Thank god, it was such an awesome movie.

Actually I wanted to see it in the local cinema but no one else was interested in it and I already have to watch lots of movies alone. Speaking of loneliness, this is one of the films main theme. It means that Joaquin Phoenix had the burden to carry it mostly alone with the sulky voice of Scarlett Johansson.

In the near future, Theodor is facing divorce from his wife and he feels lonely. I buys himself a virtual companion, a computer programme with a female voice. What starts out as a mere substitute for a real person at his side develops into a very deep and intimate relationship.

One of the best movies I have seen recently (yeah, I know there's a lot of good movie reviews, but I try to buy good DVD's not crappy ones). It's intimate but never really awkward, rude or embarrassing. It's a modern love story with a lot hindsight, carefully executed dialogues and a great plot. Phoenix acting is awesome (as always) and Johanssons voice is so lovely, one could listen to it endlessly. I also want to point out the visual designs and layout of this flick - if You are interested in interior design and furniture, You will absolutely love it. I have always been a admirer of Spike Jonze and "Her" surely asserted that.

I recently watched "Night on Earth" by Director Jim Jarmusch. Besides being a typical Arthaus movie, I didn't know, what to write about it and decided to give it a rewatch. "Broken Flowers" made it easier for me and I really liked it. Bill Murray is perfect in the role of a notorious womanizer trying to find out which one of his former partners wrote him a letter that she had a son with him. He's going for a search in the whole country, which makes this movie looking like a different kind of roadmovie. The women are played by great actresses such as Delpy, Lange, Stone, Conroy and Sevigny. The story is very straightforward, it all comes down to the interaction between Don and the women. It's at once comedy and drama, but nothing emotionally strong. To me it had something of a roadmovie and had also that "Up in the Air" travelling feeling.

It's a fine film with some great moments but likewise it was not outstanding either. Jim Jarmusch is loved by the female audience and this movies shows why: he understands them well and his female characters are interesting. He's like the American Almodovar. You must like this kind of movie-making and most importantly: you must like Bill Murray.

Hanna with Simon, Simon with Adam, Adam with Hanna. A movie about polyamourous relationships made by one of the best German directors.

Tom Tykwer (Lola Rennt) made a movie, which at first started like the typical pretentious artsy festival prize contestants. It felt like a mixture of "Goodbye Lenin" and "Das merkwürdige Verhalten geschlechtsreifer Paare...". But then at some point the plot got intense and had some smoking intimate scenes not suitable for the faint hearted. In the end it's about adults exploring their borders in face of illness, death and birth.

Berlin shines as cultural background, although I am not that big a fan of such cultural happenings. The actors are great and do their job with great dignity, which is not that easy given the difficult to approach topic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115669/?ref_=rvi_tt

Movies aren't inferior than books. They are documents using dialogue and images from a certain era to tell a story. "The King of Masks" still breathes the Deng Xiaoping era. Even if the story is based in the early 20th century, it's obvious that the film precedes the modern China we know today.

An old performer of the dying out art of mask changing is struggling through life and has no son. One day he buys himself a child in an orphanage which should one day inherit his skills and the tradition.

Very intense and emotional, the story shows a time which even modern China didn't completely overcome. The plot is nice and straightforward, the images haunting and the actors performance very charming. I think I learned something about China. I recommend it strongly - it's one of the best Asian movies I have ever seen.

In the tradition of Kurosawas "The Seven Samurai", this movie is for Samurai-movie lovers. The story is simple: bad prince must be killed and thirteen men get the task to do it. There is very little background about most of the men - it's just about planning, followed by one huge festival of limb slashing, rolling heads and awesome sword fighting choreography. The last forty minutes absolutely rock! The martial battle cries and the typical Samurai yadda yadda and pseudo- philosophy (loyalty of course), are somewhat forgettable - there are better films out there, like "Ame Agaru" ,"Rashomon", "Seven Samurai", "Yojimbo", "Ran", "Zatoichi". Nevertheless, I personally liked it, since I got plenty of sword swinging Samurai scenes. But one must be a fan of such flicks to like 13 Assassins.

Famous french director Jacques Tati (1907-1982) wrote the script for this animated film for his daughter who also died in 2001. An aged magician finds himself struggling in a modern world, where the old fashioned varieté artists have more and more trouble to find work in order to survive. He's not a man of many words but with a great heart who's trying his luck in Edinburgh, Scotland. This lovely movie was directed by the guys who made "Les Triplettes de Belleville". The story is intense and I have to say there is a lot of sadness and hopelessness, although always represented in a charming "french" way. The only similar anime must be "Die Letzten Glühwürmchen". This is a fine approach to Tati's work, whose movies have this interesting relationship between the muteness of the main characters, the eye for details, society and the social interaction between different people. Interesting and entertaining for all ages. 8/10

Sequels are often worse than the first film. Two exceptions of this rule are made by a certain James Cameron: "Aliens" and "Terminator 2" (he also made the first one). The newest installment of the franchise is no exception either but at least it's not bad. Another interesting aspect is the reality reflected by sequels, best seen in James Bond movies among others. The first "Terminator", made 1984 was inspired by robotics used in economy, combined with with the success of movies like "Return of the Jedi" and the upcoming of bodybuilding. The newest film reflects on Facebook, digitalization, apps and the world wide web. There's strong connection to "Matrix" now, too. The main situation hasn't changed: survive against an unstoppable machine. Loads of action and pyro guaranteed and of course, the new enemy is even stronger than the older ones. Emilia Clarke (aka Daenaeris) is fine as inheritor of Linda Hamiltons, Claire Danes and Lena Headeys (aka Cersei) role as "Sarah Connor". But honestly, I liked Arnie most as grandpa Terminator, he gets all the laughs and real emotions. The story is a bit twisted and leaves a lot of questions. Twisting stories are something amazing when done by the likes of Christopher Nolan or Quentin Tarantino, but in this case less would have been more. "Terminator 2" was so great because it a bag of stuff never seen before and had this awesome, unforgettable soundtrack. "Genisys" doesn't bring anything really new and that's why it is just a solid sequel - nothing more, nothing less.

7/10

Too much mysticism and symbolism destroys a potential masterpiece. Marc Caro took top actors and put them in a very promising environment: a lonely space station with psychotic prisoners. But then, things go downwards. Too many repetitions of the same emotions, unexplained narratives, personalities that are at once interesting but without proper development. The end is very bad too and not even a budget cut by 50% can explain that. The movie wanted to be intelligent, make You think, but the mixture does not work, they do not need science fiction elements to show messianism and the topos of shouldering the burden of evil. Dante 01 is one big disappointment. Any other similar production like "Event Horizon", "Resident Evil" or even "Ghosts of Mars", "Mutant Chronicles" or "Doom" are more fun to watch.

5/10

There's a big tradition of stories about robots saving earth. Not until "Transformers" was it possible for modern cinema to adapt it for the big audience. As child I always dreamt of a real movie with anime style robots, now it has come true. This isn't an Arthaus-Movie and it never tries to be one. It's full of cool animation, stunning visuals and action. Yes the plot is simple, but hey, I've watched almost every single Sci-Fi flick out there - believe me, I saw much worse when it comes to narrations and plots! The acting is adequate, at times a bit overacted, but it won't really make you sick either. Like most of the late movies, this one is also aimed at world audition, so expect it not wholly concentrated on western culture, although Asians and Hong Kong serve just as some sort of "extras". I loved these battle machines so much more than the "Transformers" because of their style, but yes, without the latter, there would never be a "Pacific Rim" at all. All of the other guys going to watch it were very much pleased as well, but admittedly: this nothing for the girls. It's a love or hate movie and I love it. In the Sci-Fi genre it's worth an 8/10

Want to see the newest on the Gothic Horror Front? "Penny Dreadful" is a really well done TV Show featuring top notch actors like Eva Green, Josh Hartnett and Timothy Dalton. It mixes different famous stories, topics and creatures of the Victorian era to the modern, illiterate crowd. Of course, if you read books, you know what it is about and where the narrative must go. The good: the stories are rewritten and don't follow the famous novels. The Bad: it still is predictable. Given that even the classic horror stories are far more than just three or four famous works, there is plenty of usable material which was not used. Well, I expect Jekyll and Hide as one of the next seasons topics, but I really wish the producers dig deeper and write some truly amazing stuff. Oh and yes, Eva Green once more proves that she's a great actress. Timothy Dalton is equally great. The props and general quality of the show is fantastic. On my wish list is an improvement of the stories, more scariness and some really new stuff which I have never seen.

8/10

"Black Butler" started a bit disappointing. It was clear from the beginning, that the anime would walk in the footsteps of "Deathnotes". After some time, the typical anime plots (Faustian Pact, Lost Parents, Revenge, Friendship) are revealed but then the Victorian Age feeling gets much better and bigger attention. There's a ton of really well researched stuff and the tension rises as the main story unfolds.

The show is not as good as "Death Note" and has imho a lot of homosexual content in it, which is more or less openly shown. I assume it is, among other things, to attract more female and viewers. The funny thing is, that females are either shown as dolls, clumsy servants, killing machines or just some extras. While Walt Disney is getting really feminist lately, the Japanese have yet to invent better female - believable - anime characters.

Including all flaws - this is one of the best anime shows at the moment. A mixture of Steampunk, Gothic Horror and Crime. Not too violent and gory but at times very thrilling!

8/10

Depardieu plays with great dignity an almost illiterate guy who meets a ninety year old woman who shows him the marvellous world of (french) literature. As he delves more into the labyrinth of verbs his overall behaviour changes and he starts to see the world with different eyes.

The movie gives you an answer, what novels and plays may be good for and how deep that world goes. The cast is great and there's good vibe between Gérard Depardieu and Gisèle Casadeus. The narrative also explains step by step the world and the society of the protagonist, all with a lot or irony and french "humeur". As someone who studied literature I loved the movie for its tenderness, its love for books and the explanations of how novels may work and affect someone.

8/10

The fourth film of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise is only loosely connected to the other ones. Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are still there, Knightley and Bloom aren't. The story is typical for the series and I think the viewer gets what he can expect: loads of adventure, action, sword fighting, wondrous creatures and pirate marvels, the movie has it all. It's fun, but it could improve on that, it's also not too violent, making it a nice family movie. The acting is fine, thanks to the many great actors here, with appearances such as Judy Dench, Richard Griffiths, Geoffrey Rush and the like. The landscape, the props, the music and special effects are as great as they were in the other three installments.

I give it a 7/10.

"Cidade de deus" (Famous Favela of Rio de Janeiro)

Rober Ebert wrote, that this is one of the very best movies ever. It has a 8.7 Rating on IMDb. I'd rate it 8/10.

It's a gangster epic about Brasils Favelas and how difficult it is, to survive there and how people get addicted to drugs, drug dealing, stealing and killing from childhood onwards. The movie is very violent and the atrocities perpetuated by and to children are stunning. You can see how things get worse and how corrupt and helpless the state of Brasil is.

The way the story is narrated is incredible, you will love, the way it's been done. It all seems very real, drastic and grim - making it hard to really like it or love it. All gangster movies, like all war movies, fail at demystifying violence and the use of weapons. I bet, gangs love the movie too - and therein lies the the poodles core. That's my only explanation, why I only rate it 8/10, that and a the repetitive shooting and violence.

I'm no fan of US patriotism, but "Captain America" played indeed a role in US history. If you can't accept this, don't watch it. In this movie he battles Nazis and an evil antagonist named "Red Skull". The technology level of both sides in the conflict is high and it gives you the feeling of an alternate universe. The quality of the production and props is state of the art and Chris Evans isn't a worse superhero as others, although his acting is not going to win against the likes of Robert Downey, Tom Hiddlestone or Jeremy Renner, to name just a few other actors in the superhero genre. Someone said that Hugo Weavings figure looks ridiculous and there's some truth behind, but hey - how about "Hellboy"? Speaking of "Hellboy", the connection between Erskine and Rogers could have been displayed in a more deep, more emotional manner, although I have to admit, that "Hellboys" relationship to Bruttenholm is one of many years. The romance level is thankfully small and Hayley Atwell reminded me so much of Kate Beckinsale. I'm not used to reading any DC or Marvel comics, but I enjoyed all the little hints to the Marvel universe. As an introduction to a new superhero for cinematic use, "Captain America" is well narrated and gives plenty of opportunities to go deeper into character development or just more action with more bad ass antagonists. Sam Raimis "Spiderman" is a better introduction to a superhero, but this movie is entertaining too.

7/10

I can tell from my own experiences that in German speaking countries, that this movie is considered a cult-movie and that it is extremely popular. It has also its traditional firm spot in TV every Christmas, because people still love it. Success is owed to the very lovely couple Libuse Safrankova and Pavel Travnicek and to the music written by the great composer Karel Svoboda. The props are great too (Czechoslovakian style of the early modern times) and combined with the lovely landscape, it gives everyone a real good Christmas fairy entertainment.

10 out of 10 for beloved childhood memories and the perfect Christmas fairy tale. Three generations of spectators cannot be wrong!

Elysium

Elysium is at one point disappointing and at the other it is fine. It's a Dystopia which does not look like it could be too far away from the present. The longer you think about it, Elyisum already happens everywhere, and Neill Blomkamp is a South African native, so it becomes clear, that the message is about poverty and money in the future. The difficulty making such a future logic and scientifically well, is obvious, and it is not completely convincing. There lies the main problem of a sci-fi movie. You make either a starwarsy fairy tale or you have to make it very, very believable like the director's much acclaimed "District 9".

Plotwise it reminded me of "Wall-E" (which was better), "Oblivion", "Escape from NY" and some anime type plots . The story was very predictable from the beginning and for my taste, it could have been made completely PG 18 in terms of violence, to make it darker and more grim. Now, it looks a bit indecisive. The actors were fine, especially the less known, like Copley, Luna and Moura. Jodie Foster is great here, reminded me a bit of Tilda Swintons performance in "Michael Clayton". Matt Damon is a good actor, but he's a bit overused lately. In comparison to "Pacific Rim" it's clear, why the audience is more happy with Del Toros skyscraper-style movie: it's pure entertainment, reality is far away and the violence is very mild - you hate it or you love it.

To sum it up, I was well entertained by this. I liked the strong hints of real present problems. I disliked the predictable way the story unfolds, the overall mixture of action and violence and some illogic details. I definitely want to see more movies by Blomkamp and so it gets my 7.0.