julianetzel
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
14 years
Reviews
District 9 (2009)
Looks nice, but not as deep as expected.
When I first saw the trailer, I imagined District 9 to become a serious movie with thought - now that I've seen it I have to regret my naivety.
I will rate this movie 6 just because of the production. The images are magnificent and Johannesburg as location is a good choice. The CGI and gore effects are very good but exaggerated and sometimes they're just over the top, causing the movie to lose sincerity. Peter Jackson: I think you miss the good old times, when you showed us what BAD TASTE means.
The Story was - against my expectations - way too stereotypical with "van der Merwe" as critical character. I found it hard to follow this guy and you honestly notice, that Neill Blomkamp is a very inexperienced writer. Van der Merwes actions are just too tailored, making the character perfectly fit into the plot. In my opinion it should be the other way around: You've got a character in mind, and thus create a plot, based on what the actual character would do.
For example: What's with these stupid phone calls with Tanja? It's an irreproducible glitch that destroys so much of the movies sincere side. All they say is: "I love you, i believe you, don't believe your father, i do believe you" and all that gibberish for no reason!
One of the worst examples for a major "clichee-scene" is when van der Merwe is in the Mech, running away leaving the Alien behind and 5 seconds later he - for no reason - turns around and rescues him. Why don't shoot the military guy in the first place? At that point of the movie it doesn't matter because he has killed like 20-50 people anyways. It is just a bad attempt to create something like tension in all the wrong places.
If I could rate the Production and the Story separately I would give a 3/10 for story and a 9/10 for visualization, leaving me with a 6.
I honestly don't get this overrating delusion everyone is suffering from....
I will rate this movie 6 just because of the production. The images are magnificent and Johannesburg as location is a good choice. The CGI and gore effects are very good but exaggerated and sometimes they're just over the top, causing the movie to lose sincerity. Peter Jackson: I think you miss the good old times, when you showed us what BAD TASTE means.
The Story was - against my expectations - way too stereotypical with "van der Merwe" as critical character. I found it hard to follow this guy and you honestly notice, that Neill Blomkamp is a very inexperienced writer. Van der Merwes actions are just too tailored, making the character perfectly fit into the plot. In my opinion it should be the other way around: You've got a character in mind, and thus create a plot, based on what the actual character would do.
For example: What's with these stupid phone calls with Tanja? It's an irreproducible glitch that destroys so much of the movies sincere side. All they say is: "I love you, i believe you, don't believe your father, i do believe you" and all that gibberish for no reason!
One of the worst examples for a major "clichee-scene" is when van der Merwe is in the Mech, running away leaving the Alien behind and 5 seconds later he - for no reason - turns around and rescues him. Why don't shoot the military guy in the first place? At that point of the movie it doesn't matter because he has killed like 20-50 people anyways. It is just a bad attempt to create something like tension in all the wrong places.
If I could rate the Production and the Story separately I would give a 3/10 for story and a 9/10 for visualization, leaving me with a 6.
I honestly don't get this overrating delusion everyone is suffering from....
The Man from Earth (2007)
You've got to be kidding me....
If I could vote for a less than zero, this one would definitely deserve it. There is NO, and I mean NOT ONE, excuse for producing such a bad movie. Was it due to the low budget? I clearly doubt it. Take Christopher Nolan's "Following" for example and you see what you can get out of 70 minutes and almost "no-budget".
The story was predictable from the first moment he said that he was 14000 years old. I was kidding with a friend of mine and honestly telling him like "Yeah, wait up, in the end he's Jesus himself". I fell of my chair, when he really said that. The Characters are completely thoughtless and pseudo-intellectual. I am myself a student of psychology - and yes: there are some major dorks in that field who still believe in father-complexes and childhood dramas as reason for just EVERYTHING - but Dr. Will Gruber is just a bad sketch of a psychologist.
The same goes for every other character of this movie - one more stereotypical than the others. On top of that is the crazy Christian conservative - how could it be different - symbolized by an old mean woman. The biologist, archaeologist and Tony Todd are also just poorly sketched "intellectuals" and at times I wondered, if Bixby has ever seen a professor in his real life because the character traits are completely stereotypical and made out of thin air.
My favorite character is Alexis Thorpe as "Linda", student, hot and obviously crazy in love with her professor - who is just as nuts as everyone else with one exception: he drives a bike and looks like a real rocker! yeaaaaah! how awesome is he? At one time, at the end, when they leave the place you can see Lindas blank ass when she gets up. My favorite moment of the movie.
As for the great dialogues and memorable lines from this movie:
Dan: "I would kill anyone"
Edith (after Dr. Gruber showed his gun): "Where did he get that?" (This Movie takes place in the USA an Edith was not so surprised about the giant crossbow in John's cabin... what the heck?)
I really do not want to waste too much time on this piece of crap, but a few things need to be said.
The plot is too transparent. The scientific "facts" are clearly out of a book and are used out of any context. The pseudo-intellectual conversations just seem way too posed. The ending is hilarious. As it turns out he is not only Jesus, no, he is also the father of the psychologist, whoms wife died just yesterday, and who has an obvious father-complex (see my irony please) and therefore dies too. There are some very uncommon gap fillers, containing actions and reactions I have never ever observed at any point in my life from anyone. Another pain in the ass is, that the acting is so bad, that they really have to speak out every single feeling, emotion, whatsoever. Good acting makes the vocalization obsolete.
In my opinion Bixby made everything wrong that one could possibly be wrong. And i DO NOT hate it just because of all the reasons the people who rate this film high are referring to, namely shortness, lack of "action", lack of location variety or "intellectual demand", because there are many many movies that i love who fulfill these characteristics.
You want a low budget film that is great: watch "Following"! You want a one location movie with intellectual demand: watch "Hard Candy" You want a brilliant movie without any "action": watch "Coffee and Cigarettes"
To all of you who are easily impressed by scientific talk, that you may or may not understand: watch the film again. keep in mind the stereotypical scientist. think one more time what these people are talking about and if in any rational way a conversation like this could be possible. if you still think: yeah, it is possible, than i truly grief for America's university-elite.
The story was predictable from the first moment he said that he was 14000 years old. I was kidding with a friend of mine and honestly telling him like "Yeah, wait up, in the end he's Jesus himself". I fell of my chair, when he really said that. The Characters are completely thoughtless and pseudo-intellectual. I am myself a student of psychology - and yes: there are some major dorks in that field who still believe in father-complexes and childhood dramas as reason for just EVERYTHING - but Dr. Will Gruber is just a bad sketch of a psychologist.
The same goes for every other character of this movie - one more stereotypical than the others. On top of that is the crazy Christian conservative - how could it be different - symbolized by an old mean woman. The biologist, archaeologist and Tony Todd are also just poorly sketched "intellectuals" and at times I wondered, if Bixby has ever seen a professor in his real life because the character traits are completely stereotypical and made out of thin air.
My favorite character is Alexis Thorpe as "Linda", student, hot and obviously crazy in love with her professor - who is just as nuts as everyone else with one exception: he drives a bike and looks like a real rocker! yeaaaaah! how awesome is he? At one time, at the end, when they leave the place you can see Lindas blank ass when she gets up. My favorite moment of the movie.
As for the great dialogues and memorable lines from this movie:
Dan: "I would kill anyone"
Edith (after Dr. Gruber showed his gun): "Where did he get that?" (This Movie takes place in the USA an Edith was not so surprised about the giant crossbow in John's cabin... what the heck?)
I really do not want to waste too much time on this piece of crap, but a few things need to be said.
The plot is too transparent. The scientific "facts" are clearly out of a book and are used out of any context. The pseudo-intellectual conversations just seem way too posed. The ending is hilarious. As it turns out he is not only Jesus, no, he is also the father of the psychologist, whoms wife died just yesterday, and who has an obvious father-complex (see my irony please) and therefore dies too. There are some very uncommon gap fillers, containing actions and reactions I have never ever observed at any point in my life from anyone. Another pain in the ass is, that the acting is so bad, that they really have to speak out every single feeling, emotion, whatsoever. Good acting makes the vocalization obsolete.
In my opinion Bixby made everything wrong that one could possibly be wrong. And i DO NOT hate it just because of all the reasons the people who rate this film high are referring to, namely shortness, lack of "action", lack of location variety or "intellectual demand", because there are many many movies that i love who fulfill these characteristics.
You want a low budget film that is great: watch "Following"! You want a one location movie with intellectual demand: watch "Hard Candy" You want a brilliant movie without any "action": watch "Coffee and Cigarettes"
To all of you who are easily impressed by scientific talk, that you may or may not understand: watch the film again. keep in mind the stereotypical scientist. think one more time what these people are talking about and if in any rational way a conversation like this could be possible. if you still think: yeah, it is possible, than i truly grief for America's university-elite.