Scrugulus

I finally managed to watch my copy of Ear Buds: The Podcasting Documentary.

Ear Buds is the brain-child and pet project of podcasters Graham Elwood and Chris Mancini (The Comedy Film Nerds Podcast). Ear Buds is not about the technical aspects of podcasting, nor is it about the history of the medium. It is about the podcasters and their fans, and the way they connect through the podcasts. The documentary digs deep into the personal issues of podcasters (mostly comedians) and explains the way this medium allows them to be more in control of their material and its distribution. And the film introduces a number of podcast listeners who found solace in podcasts during a variety of personal crises.

This particular focus of the film also highlights the weird situation that podcasts mean so much to so many people, while still being basically unknown to 95% of the general public. Accordingly, the film opens on a vox-pop montage with people being flabbergasted by the question "what is a podcast?". It then moves into a very well-done animated PSA, and on to a series of introductions of various podcasters and also some podcast listeners. After a multi-layered introduction, the film settles in nicely, with a good pace.

While the documentary opens on the podcasters, and then moves on to the listeners, structurally it often moves between these two groups for most of the film. One reason is that some listeners are also podcasters themselves, but the main reason is that podcasters and listeners often do form a close community, which – as I stated above – is the main focus of the documentary. So by using this structure, the documentary manages to demonstrate that point even better.

The film looks very good thanks to the camera work and the efforts in colour correction. Ear Buds' main strengths are a great musical score and very good editing. Over the course of nearly three years, Graham Elwood and Chris Mancini saddled themselves and their editor Tina Imahara with many, many hours of footage, which must have been very difficult to boil down into the 102 minutes of net running time we have in the final product.

If the aforementioned focus of this documentary appeals to you, I can strongly recommend watching it. DVDs and downloads (including additional material options) are sold CFN store: https://store.comedyfilmnerds.com

note: Ear Buds will receive some form of distribution in the second half of 2017. Around that time, sales of the documentary through the CFN store will stop for a 90-day hiatus, for contractual reasons.

This episode has a great plot and great characters (and actors). It is - on the whole - a very convincing whodunnit, something you cannot say about some of the other episodes. Maybe it is because of the mystery and the intrigue that the levity seems to come a bit short in this episode. The interactions between Brett and Daniel are a bit infrequent and toned down.

Gladys Cooper does an outstanding job as the Grand-Duchess - a role which would prove to be her last. The other actors in this episode are also doing a good job, even if some of them have to deal with characters that seem to be written a tad larger-than-life.

This is definitely one of the show's strongest episodes - for me it ranks in the top 4.

I love the show, but this episode was beyond ridiculous. I can accept that they had to do some ret-conning in order to bring that particular affair to a close. But there was no need for the many many conjectures they made to be so extremely far-fetched. Not even a psychic could have come up with this stuff. A lot of very lazy writing must have gone into this - plus a need to rush things (perhaps certain recurring characters' contracts were up and they did not want to renew them beyond season 6??). All this conjecture was made worse by them cramming a lot of plot development into 40 minutes. There was more than enough plot here to do a two-parter that would have been decently paced and would have given the plot and the twists and "discoveries" the necessary room to breathe. Yet, they choose not to do this as a two-parter. Perhaps they did not have the time because they were getting too close to the end of the season??

The episode is fun in itself, and not that much out-of-character, actually, compared to others in earlier seasons. So, for me, there would nothing be wrong with the tone of the main plot in itself. But the ending is tonally completely different from the rest of the episode; and everything is bent and forced into that kind of season-ending that all TV shows nowadays believe they must manufacture. The other problem with the tone is that it feels jarring compared to the tone of the previous episode, which was so much darker (which is, of course, only "jarring" if you watch them on a DVD set, back to back, not one week apart on TV).

On the bright side, the acting by guest stars Scottie Thompson and Eddie McClintock is delightful.

Hellfjord is a prime example of missed opportunities. It has a great premise, and some suitable actors in its cast, but a number of creative choices (some of them just plain lazy) turn this show into a dead duck. Marketed as a mix between Lilyhammer and Twin Peaks, Hellfjord may have some of the absurdity of the latter, but none of the warmth and wit of the former.

The series tries to score with gross-out scenes and potty-humour - it's like a trip through the brain of a psychopathic 6-year-old. None of this is entertaining, all it achieves is to paint a picture of creative helplessness and to shine a light on the many ways in which the writing in this series lacks true originality. Toning down all the nonsense and toddleresque jokes by at least 30% would have been a start to improve the show, but then the writing would have needed to be better in order to fill in the gaps. Throwing all the potty-humour and every bawdy joke they could think of at the screen, the writers stuffed the script so full of this kind of crap (and similar bad choices), so that there was no room left for any actual humour. The writing completely fails to tap into the rich reservoir of Nordic humour, the subtleties and the oddities of which we all love so much. Very little of this can be found in this show.

The other massive failure in this show is the casting/acting. I have no idea who thought it was a good idea to have the characters of Kobba and Kose played by young people in bad make-up (Stig Frode Henriksen and Maria Bock). The questionable acting and writing choices surrounding these characters aside, it would have improved the show a lot if they had chosen seasoned actors of the same age as those characters. Preferably character actors that could carry these roles through their experience alone.

Only by episode 6 (out of 7) does this show start to become interesting, but by then it has completely changed its tone because it is heading for a dramatic showdown. And while drama and comedy work well together, drama and silliness don't. That change in tone is so sudden and abrupt that it feels like an entirely different show. The final episode then offers us a Tarantino-style shoot-out which is completely undermined by the following scenes which see the show revert to the inane silliness of the earlier episodes.

It is a shame that such a great idea has been squandered by numerous questionable choices in production. Rating: 4.5 out of 10.

Let's make one thing clear right at the start: this is not a good film.

There is nothing new or inventive about this film. I do not mind film- makers using old-and-tried tropes IF they use them to make a polished and accomplished B-movie. But in cases like The Bleeding, where mediocrity was all that ever seemed achievable (or worth aiming for) for everyone involved, you need to come up with something new: low budget needs to be outweighed by higher creativity. But there is nothing creative about this script or this film. It has a very average "seen-it-before" plot, and many things in this film I consider well below average (writing, directing, etc.).

However, there are worse films than this, so 1-star-ratings do not seem justified to me. This is probably a 3 out of 10; I gave it one extra star for Michael Madsen's performance, who - unlike Vinnie Jones - actually put in some effort.

My Mandala is an Asian 'spiritual' drama with hidden elements of comedy.

It is an interesting film, and the cast is very strong, especially the actors playing the leading roles. Despite its deficiencies, it is also a rather impressive work for a first time director with only one other script to her name.

I'll admit that with Asian films I always feel I lack the necessary cultural background to fully understand the motivation of some of the characters. So as far as that is concerned I'll confine myself to saying that I wish that the explanation of the motivations of He Xinyu and her husband had been developed a bit more, for my sake at least.

Two more general - and in the end more weighty - problems are the failure of the script/edit to connect the film's diffuse sibling-relationship-storyline to its main plot, and the nauseating and at times chaotic flashbacks which are meant to illustrate that relationship-storyline.

Still - as I said - an interesting film to watch. Maybe even more so for those with some knowledge of Asian spirituality.

I give this a 6 out of 10.

I've just seen this film at the International Film Festival Mannheim-Heidelberg, and judging from the reaction of the audience, I am not alone with my confusion about the elements mentioned above, and the overall reaction had a general "6-out-of-10"-feel about it, in congruence with my opinion.

Hemma combines all the strengths of Scandinavian comedies. It is subtle, quirky, funny, and moving. It has a very good cast, and is a surprisingly strong showing for a first-time writer/director (Maximilian Hult).

The male and female lead characters are played with exactly the right kind of subtlety. But as is often the case with comedies, the supporting characters are essential for the humour - although "supporting" may be a misleading term here, as the two characters in question have probably more screen time and more lines than the two protagonists. Veteran actress Anita Wall delivers a superb performance as the grandmother. And Erik Lundqvist gives an outstanding debut for a boy his age. The performance of these two alone would be enough reason to go an see this film.

Two minor points of criticism: The developing love story is hindered a bit by the fact that we see little character development in the female lead. That was certainly intended, as she is definitely an Asperger's case. Still, some scenes between her and her male counterpart could have been a minute or two longer, so that the audience can better get into the relationship they are meant to root for. Then there is the problem of two rather strong but underused minor characters. Elin Petersdottir and Lia Boysen do an excellent job, but their characters are unsatisfyingly presented by the script. If you have two female characters in the film who are presented as that strong and forceful, you should use them more and tell us more about them. If you do not have the time and/or inclination to do that, do not present them as that potent a factor in the film.

An almost perfect film - I'll give Hemma 7 out of 10, easily, probably even 8 out of 10.

I've just seen this film at the International Film Festival Mannheim-Heidelberg, and talking about the audience reaction, the general mood of the crowd was at least of a "8-out-of-10"-quality....

This film is really awful.

The acting is bad, ... the writing is bad, ... the directing is bad, ... even the cutting/editing is bad. And it does take a lot for a film to be so dismally bad that even as a layman you can literally witness each and every one of the bad editing decisions.

I like vampire films; and I do know that there are some films that can be good even though they are bad.

But this film here has absolutely no redeeming features.

It isn't trashy cult, ... it isn't unintentionally funny, ... nothing of the sort.

--> It is just plain bad.

I'll start (again), by saying that the acting is good to very good throughout. That does exclude Pattinson and Samuel - both very good actors I'm sure - who seem both at a loss as to what their characters' motivations are. For Pattinson, it is evident throughout the franchise that he cannot find access to Edwards weird inner self. But in my opinion it is never more visibly obvious than in this third film. This is usually not really the fault of the actor - writers and/or directors are to blame for that. In Edward's case, I think it is fair to say that he is a rather badly written character. And Samuel seems to be at a similar problem with his character (Riley), though I am tempted to put the blame more on the directing than the writing in this case.

As for the plot, there isn't much. It is all just one long preparation for the final battle scene. And the love triangle subplot is just a continuation from the second film. A judgement which one might extent to the whole film: it does at times seem a bit like an addendum to "New Moon".

Although the film contains the most hilarious line of the whole franchise ("Doesn't he own a shirt?"), it also features the infamous "I'm Switzerland"-line, a line so bad and so incongruous in that very scene that it even seems to throw Stewart of her game, as it is one of the very rare scenes in all of the films in which her acting seems to be sub-par.

On the whole, I'd probably struggle to give this one more that a 5.5 out of 10. However, it does make a difference whether you view it as a stand-alone film, or whether you watch it in close succession with the other films (which is preferable).

Taken on its own - i. e. taken as a stand-alone film and judged independently of the other films of the franchise - this is a decent film from the very specific "Buffy"-genre: high-school/growing-up/vampire-love. The story holds up, and the acting (throughout the cast) is good to very good. It's more or less a 7.5 out of 10. But there are some weaknesses that make me withhold my ratings vote for the moment (for some further reflection). Some scenes of the film (e. g. the one with Edward and Bella on the mountain/meadow) are rather badly written and even worse directed. And as for the music: the score in this and other scenes is at times quite atrocious.

Let's start by stating what this film had in common with the first one: quite decent acting on all fronts. What it didn't have was a common theme: it completely fell apart into two separate story-lines: 1) the Edward-Bella-Jake plot and Bella's suffering and her recuperation through her time spent with Jake. 2) the Volturi plot

In my view, it would never have been easy to seamlessly string those two together, but the way it was done in this film certainly didn't work. That being said, both plot-lines were decent, the first one more so.

Were it for the first plot alone, I would probably give the film at least 6.5 out of 10, but I guess as a whole I'll rather end up nearer 5.5.....

There is not much happening altogether in this film. They put way too much focus on the wedding and the honeymoon, thus wasting precious time. But I guess all those teenage girl fans wanted a full portrayal of the big romantic wedding.

In all of the previous films, I liked the acting of most of the cast a lot. But in this film, everyone except Bella, Edward & Jacob is marginalised to such an extent that there cannot be much said about them. As an audience you just don't get to see enough of any of them to really develop a connection with or care about them.

Altogether this is an OK addition to the franchise, by no means worse than the disappointing/confusing 2nd or 3rd films. I assume I will give this film either a 5 or a 6 (out of 10), but I think I will withhold my final vote until I have seen part 2. I know some might say that they are released as separate films and therefore should be treated as such, but as the original book is ripped into two halves here, I think it is fair to reserve the final judgement until I have seen the two films in conjunction (seeing that, as I haven't read the books, I will need to have seen both films in order to make sense of it all).

I watched this film at a cinema recently, the first film in a very long time that I have actually watched at a cinema instead of waiting for the DVD. I anticipated that the visual effects required a big screen to be savoured to the full - and I was right.

As has been said here before, the visual aspects of the film (the costumes, the set design, the CGI, etc.) is absolutely breathtaking, and at no point do they seem overdone or gratuitous - they fit the style and the tone of the film perfectly.

The acting of all the cast, especially those in leading roles, is superb, and Charlize Theron gives a terrifyingly good portrayal of the evil usurper.

The reason I give this film only a rating of 7 out of 10 has mainly to do with the story itself:

One problem is that this film is more or less exactly what you expect when someone tells you they want to turn Snow White into a fantasy film, with Snow White herself as the lead heroine. The story itself is just not daring or adventurous enough, for my taste, sticking too close to good old fantasy genre recipes.

Another problem is that there are too many minor characters which are introduced but then only seen briefly; they thus slow down the pace of the story without adding any value to it.

Biggest mistake in the script's most basic plot is the fact that we don't see Snow White for roughly 10 years and are then presented with Kirsten Stewart who then picks up the storyline and saves the world in a span of a couple of days. That robs the audience of witnessing any major character development in the heroine and thus reduces our interest in her. It has often been said recently that good TV series can offer you character development (and in result a connection with the characters) that movies cannot, because of their limited length. That certainly holds true for this film. The audience has far more connection with characters in Game of Thrones - or even the Lord of the Rings trilogy - than characters in Snow White and the Huntsman. And that is not the fault of the director or the actors - it is mainly a problem of time constraints. As I pointed out, I think the writers could have improved that situation somewhat by trying to give us some more "access" to Snow White growing up; but at the end of the day, probably only a brave and costly adventure - like turning this material into a two-parter or a trilogy - would have solved this problem

This is a very nice film, in which the main character is trying to figure out the meaning of after-life. And after-life can be a very depressing place, including group-therapy, and the nagging suspicion that your superiors are judging you every step of the way. A typically grey and gloomy Scottish atmosphere provides the background against which the main character tries to muddle through with a DIY-mentality ("Don't Involve Yourself") - which is disturbed by his "side-kick", a walking Ali G parody, whose "help" is the last thing anyone needs.

Although in style this film is based on a subdued form of humour, you find yourself chuckling through most of the film and laughing out loud very frequently. The last one is mainly courtesy of the "side-kick". This is not a film for those who prefer their films jam-packed with action. In fact, "inaction" and "being/feeling trapped" is an important topic of the film. So the "speed" of the film is conformable to its rather grey atmosphere - so, tempo and atmosphere are a bit like the Frances McDormand scenes in Fargo.

The cast is excellent throughout, and Burn Gorman has the chance to shine in the lead role. This film gives the audience a chance to see the high quality he has as an actor, which is a nice change for those of us who only know him from the vastly inferior TV-series "Torchwood", whose crappy scripts and stories manage to sabotage even talents as big as those of Gorman and Barrowman.

This is a nice film, a sort of "stationary road movie". As such it is something for fans of the genre: something for those who believe that in a film - as in a journey - the way is the goal. It is not something for people who expect closure from a film.

The film presents the "hero" (and the viewer) with a nice bunch of "crazy locals". And it throws in some nods to, and mockeries of, alien and conspiracy themed films.

There's not much else to say about this film. The list of cast-members is impressive, and their performances are brilliant - or "stellar", as one should rather say in this case.

I saw that film here in Germany at a film festival. It's a pointless mishmash of would-be characterisations, hinted-at back stories, and childish play with symbolisms and metaphors. It succeeds at creating a sort of heavy summer-dream atmosphere - but what use is that without an actual story. Fittingly, the actors act their characters like they are figments of a dream, lifeless and without motivation - doing that they are probably just acting in self-defence, because they, too, apparently couldn't find any point in the script.

As a "dream", the film with its proto-characters and its atmosphere might have been a decent short film, but it's at least 60 minutes too long for that - 60 minutes you could easily have cut from the film without hurting either the atmosphere or the would-be story.

"Donau, Duna, Dunaj, Dunav, Dunarea" - like most German art house films, unfortunately - is pretentious to the n-th degree. It tries to convince the audience that it is high art, but it isn't. It's not even a film.

I am not using superlatives lightly, but this film is definitely the best Sherlock Holmes spoof that could possible exist in past, present or future. It is not only a very precise and accurate observation of the Sherlock Holmes heritage, it is at the same time very, very entertaining. Even if you don't know much about Holmes, you'll enjoy yourself.

The story itself, and the idea behind it, are brilliant. One of the strengths of the story is, in my opinion, that it does not just concentrate on the spoof part, but gives you an entertaining mystery in the traditional Holmesian style as well. The atmosphere created by the "supporting" arts (score music, set, costumes, etc.) fits the film 100%.

The cast list speaks for itself. Caine and Kingsley are at their best and their styles - minutely adapted to their characters - complement each other perfectly. And each and every one of the supporting actors is top-class.

If you are a fan of Michael Caine and/or Ben Kingsley and/or Sherlock Holmes you HAVE TO see this movie. If you are neither of the above, go hide under the stairs and be ashamed of yourself.

"Water" is a very nice satire of international politics and the battle for resources - and no doubt heavily aiming at the 1983 Grenada crisis. But it is not one of those overly-eager satires that looses story and comedy over trying to make a point. It is a funny, enjoyable film.

-

There are, unfortunately, obvious weaknesses, which have to be mentioned:

* the film did not, all in all, age that well, compared to other films - it is very much a 1980s film.

* Caine and Connolly aside, most of the other characters are neglectable - either because of mediocre acting, or because of mediocre writing.

* I personally don't count the guest appearance of several rock musicians as a plus, because I don't care for them - but if you like that sort of thing... - the "rock concert scene" is, however, one of the most annoying scenes in the film, as it doesn't move the story forward one inch, but does instead break the flow/momentum of the film.

-

Apart from being a funny film, and an excellent satire (mainly for its keen observation of reality), the films fortes are easily summed up: Caine, Caine, Connolly, and Caine.

If you are, like me, a fan of Michael Caine's comedy work, go see this film, but be advised that "Without a Clue" is by far superior and unlike "Water" hasn't aged a day.

If, apart from that, you are also interested in political satire, you should definitely see this film. If, moreover, you are particularly interested in the Grenada crisis, you HAVE TO see this film - but make sure to also see the "Yes Prime Minister" episode "A Victory for Democracy".

I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.

It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...

The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.

This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.

rating: 8/10

This is a very nice film, narrating the story of an author, Howard Spitz, who's in need of a success. When he meets little Samantha by chance, they both realize they need each other. He needs her to help him create a successful children's book; she wants him to find her runaway father.

The story develops with Howard trying to become a celebrated author without leaving the comfortable emotional reclusion he got himself into over the years, and Samantha trying more and more desperately to reach her father.

The story is nice, and the idea behind it is great. Unfortunately, the turning-point scene at the end fails. Another weak point is that writer and/or director give the minor characters far too little room to develop, even though everyone knows how much minor characters contribute to films. But Grammar alone is worth the money. His brilliant acting keeps the film well above average - in fact, standing alone, Grammar's perfect portrayal of Howard Spitz would probably deserve a 10-out-of-10 rating.

This is a very nice funny film about loyalty, friendship, dreams ... and Bingo - slightly sentimental, but not too much. I first saw this movie at the Mannheim-Heidelberg film-festival some years back, where the director described it as a "Welsh Psychic Bingo Movie"; which I guess sums it up rather well.

A girl tries to save her aging employer and his crumbling Bingo-hall from bankruptcy, against all odds. The only problem is that she doesn't know whom to trust ...

It may not be the most 'intellectual' film I've ever seen, but it is much more 'intelligent' than most films nowadays. The film creates a convincing small Welsh town atmosphere and is in this, I believe, superior to 'Plots with a View' and 'Undertaker's Paradise'. Considering the quite impressive cast, I think it goes without saying that all the actors perform brilliantly.

I was so enthusiastic about this film that I searched for a copy of it for over a year; I only could get it on DVD - and bought a DVD-player just for this film! This should show you how convinced I am of this film. I give it 9 out of 10.