Naurya

After the huge disappointment that was "The Last Jedi", I'm really glad to say that "Solo" is once again a Star Wars movie that captures the spirit of Star Wars! It doesn't try to "kill the past", but shows a decent amount of respect for its original characters.

Alden Ehrenreich does a good job as Han Solo, though - of course - he is no Harrison Ford. But it doesn't take long until you accept him as a younger Han Solo. Donald Glover, however, is brilliant as Lando Calrissian and truly embodies the smooth playboy with his extravagant clothing style. I loved every second he was on screen. Woody Harrelson was also great as Han's mentor - a role very similar to the one he played in "The Hunger Games". The only cast member who wasn't able to convince entirely was Emilia Clarke as Qi'ra, though I don't know if it's her fault or the script's fault. Too much about her character was left in the dark and even in the end I never understood her goals or motivations.

The movie is an action-packed adventure and it never gets boring. However, sometimes the action gets in the way of the character development. As an audience, we have too little time to get to know the new characters in the beginning, which makes it difficult to sympathize with them during action scenes.

The established characters, on the other hand, are all beautifully portrayed and there are some great Star Wars moments in this movie that fans have imagined since back in 1977. Some might call it fan service, but these scenes are never over the top or in-your-face, but well woven into the story.

The humor is also dead-on! I laughed a lot during the screening and I can't remember a single joke that didn't work. Most importantly, there is no self-referential humor and people also don't act out of character just for the sake of a joke (as was the case in "The Last Jedi"). I especially enjoyed the numerous instances where Han tries to talk himself out of dire situations by making ludicrous claims or excuses. Typically Han!

Though "Solo" surely isn't a revelation and can't make up for the mess that is the sequel trilogy, the movie has given me hope again that Lucasfilm might be heading into the right direction in the future. The atmosphere in "Solo" just felt right, as did the characters. The "Star Wars feeling" has returned!

Before I start writing down my impressions of this movie, I have to say that "The Three Musketeers" is one of my all-time favourite books. When I heard that a new Three Musketeers film was going to be released, I was really excited - all the more when I saw pictures of the beautiful locations in Bavaria and read that Christoph Waltz ("Inglorious Basterds") would play my favourite character Richelieu. When I saw the trailer though, I was shocked: Matrix style bullet evasion? A Ninja diver? And... zeppelin air ships? WTF? I was sure Dumas was rotating in his grave over this mutilation done to his work! Really... I don't think a brilliant story like The Three Musketeers needs air ships in order to be exciting.

Despite my frustration about the trailer, I decided to go to the cinema and I have to say, it was certainly not a total waste of time and money. First of all, the costumes and locations were extremely enjoyable. I watched the movie in 2D, but viewers will surely appreciate the 3D version. There are some nice effects like a bird's view onto a painted map of France.

Most of the actors also did a great job, especially Christoph Waltz. He was amazing, just like I had always imagined Richelieu: this cool composure he has when something is not going according to his plans, but you can see how his brilliant brain is working on something new already. I also liked his interaction with the Louis XIII. The King was portrayed in a very exaggerated manner (clueless about politics, only interested in fashion and very childish), but this ironic exaggeration of his character created a lot of fun. Orlando Bloom was also great as Buckingham. You could see how he was enjoying himself in the role of the classy, spoiled and evil British ambassador. Logan Lerman as d'Artagnan surprised me positively. I thought he was just another boyish actor teenage girls will fall in love with. But he made a really good d'Artagnan and was able to show off his fencing abilities. Apparently all the fencing choreographies were done without the help of ropes or stuntmen - Respect! The final duel between Rochefort and d'Artagnan on the roof of Notre Dame was epic. It's a pity there wasn't more sword fighting instead of zeppelins. The actors of Athos, Porthos and Aramis also did a pretty good job, but had too little screen time and thus ended up as flat characters with only one trait of character each (Athos = the disillusioned drunkard, who has lost his love, Porthos = the vain daredevil, Aramis = the religious ladies' man). The musketeers as the title heroes really should be at the centre of the plot, but in this movie Milady and Buckingham got much more attention.

Too much attention in the case of Milady. First of all, Milla Jovovich is not a good actress. Neither is she especially sexy, as the movie constantly tries to suggest. But I guess these factors don't play much of a role if you are married to the director... Secondly, I've always hated all these historical novels or films where "emancipated" women do stuff they just wouldn't have done in the century the plot is set in. And no, I'm pretty sure a woman of the 17th century would not have stripped on the roof of the palace and bungee jumped down. And no, she would not be able to win a sword fight against several Cardinal's Guards. And no group of three 17th century soldiers would have allowed a woman (in a huge gown not made for running) to draw the gunfire onto herself, so that they can go safe after she has activated the trap… There were more anachronisms like that, the most obvious one being the air ships, but I won't even start ranting about them. The second most annoying anachronism was the portrayal of Rochefort: At the beginning, d'Artagnan challenges him to a duel, but Rochefort just shoots him before he can draw his sword. Outrageous for a 17th century nobleman! If there is one important ingredient you mustn't forget in a cloak-and-sword-film, it's the code of honour: you fight your enemy, but you're always noble and fair. The movie almost completely lacked this element. Also, why the heck does a Musketeer movie need a "Mission Impossible" scene with Milady climbing though a network of invisible wires? And why can d'Artagnan, after just one audience, stroll through the palace gardens with the King? Why does Buckingham accuse the King of wearing "retro style"? – Even the soundtrack was anachronistic sometimes, when it suddenly changed from classical Hans-Zimmer-style to Pulp-Fiction-style – very irritating!

But the anachronisms are not the only logical flaws in the movie: How did the French build an air ship in one week? (How do they fly and how are they steered anyway?) Why would a royal ship use a skeleton as a figurehead? (Answer: so that you get the Pirates of the Caribbean style) Why do the musketeers first try to get into the tower vault in order to get the diamonds, but then Athos suddenly knows that the diamonds won't be there anyway, but with Milady? How does Milady survive a fall of like 100 metres?

Well, perhaps you should just switch off the logical part of your brain, when you go to see this movie! All in all, I had great fun watching it together with some friends. In the end it was better than I feared after seeing the trailers, but the sad thing is: it was worse than it could have been! All the ingredients for a great historical movie were there: excellent actors, beautiful locations and one of the best novels ever written as the basis! However, they just messed around too much with that great novel. You just can't improve a perfect story (not even with air ships), you can only make it worse.

After having seen HP6, I honestly didn't have great expectations in this one. I guessed it would be darker and scarier, as every HP movie has been darker and scarier than its predecessor. But HP6 was such a patchwork of scenes that didn't give you the feeling of a coherent work - I was afraid the even more complex story line of HP7 would make an even less coherent movie. However, I must say it was definitely a wise decision to split the 7th book into 2 movies. HP7 can take time to explain and introduce all the characters that are necessary to the plot.

I love the way Voldemort and the Death Eaters are portrayed in this movie. They are no longer just anonymous caped figures. You can see them interacting with each other, discussing and well... being human. Well, I'm always a big fan of the blurring of these clearcut good/evil categories in Fantasy.

As the book is split into 2 parts, all of a sudden, there's also time for little embellishments I hadn't realized I had missed in the earlier movies! For example, I loved the scene so much where the feather floated through the air when the fairy tale of the Three Brothers was being told. Also the drawing style that was used during the story was really amazing. This HP movie was the first of all that finally gave me the same feeling as Lord of the Rings did: Boy, this is not just some guys slavishly adapting a book into a movie, but they're actually autonomous artists and they have ideas of their own! And I don't mean they changed the whole plot (I wouldn't like that)! But (mostly visually) they did more than just bring across what's in the book.

This also expresses itself in the decision not to include the childish Harry Potter musical theme (at least I didn't hear it, correct me if I'm wrong) from the first movie that sounds like "Wow, everything's so magical here!" That tune was fine for the first movie, but as Harry got older and the movies got darker, it kind of felt like they had to force this theme into every movie several times even though it didn't really fit any more. Now the soundtrack, too, has finally grown up. And I loved it! Last but not least, the acting was brilliant! The tense atmosphere between Harry, Ron and Hermione really came across. Also with all the doppelgänger scenes, you always still saw from their movements and behaviour which character was which though they were in disguise in a different body.

All in all, as the title says, this is a excellent grown-up movie and I can recommend it to everyone - except kids! If you have little kids, please don't take them. This movie has far too many scary scenes and little comic relief! Plus, the plot is quit complex including lots and lots of minor characters. It's really no longer a movie targeted at kids, even though it's still labelled "Harry Potter".

I went to see Pope Joan with a group of friends the day it was released in Germany. Most of us had already read the book, but some had not. We were all quite skeptical as to whether the movie would be true to the book and whether it wasn't a little too long (two and a half hours seemed a lot to us!). But, after having seen it, I must say it was one of the most absorbing two-and-half-hours-movie I've ever seen. I didn't have a look at my watch once.

The story is quite true to the book. I read the book at least 8 years ago, so I had forgotten most of it. However, when the plot evolved, my memory came back and I didn't notice any major deviances from the book, neither did my friends.

"Pope Joan" is just a classical historical movie and everyone who loves that genre, will most certainly enjoy the movie! It has everything you need: a charismatic heroine who challenges the role of women in her time; some good and wise clergymen (John Goodman is great fun as food-loving, jovial Pope!); some evil and brutal clergymen who want to spread Christianity violently; some scheming and intrigues; a good portion of war and battle scenes; a romantic love story and, last but not least that interesting question at the end that will certainly cause you to discuss with your friends and search wikipedia: Was there really a woman who became Pope?

I admit it, I really fell for the marketing campaign! Those postcards saying "Toilet use only for humans", etc. were just hilarious and I instantly put one up on the toilet door in my flat. My flatmates all had a good laugh and so I decided to see the movie that gave us the funniest marketing stuff in years.

Actually, I didn't really look up the plot before going to see the film. I just had these "No aliens allowed" and "No humans allowed" signs in my mind and I concluded that the movie must be about alien discrimination. As I knew from the trailer it was an action-packed, I thought it would probably be about aliens striking back after years of oppression, defeating the humans and then putting them into a slum district - certainly mixed with a lot of action, fighting, shooting and probably blood and alien guts - but never losing the message of racial discrimination.

Well, that's what I expected, but not what I got! What I got was a rather lame story with non-credible characters. Not only was the alien race portrayed as the ones with superiour technology, but none the less stupid and just senselessly violent - the humans were also very weak flat characters, all of them. I never really sympathized with Wikus, I didn't really get an image of how he lived and what he believed in. His wife was little more than an extra. Also, more generally, you didn't get much insight into the two clashing cultures of the humans and the aliens. The only "cultural information" was that the aliens are addicted to cat food. Hmmmmm, very clever idea! When you choose to have dialogue with an alien speaking to another alien (which I found difficult to follow sometimes, as I didn't always get which alien was speaking now, because the voices all sounded pretty much the same and I can't read subtitles and at the same time look which alien is moving its mouth or rather those tentacles!), then why don't you at least let them talk about their culture, how they became oppressed, how terrible they feel under this discrimination, and how it is their dream to return home? The father-son pairing would be the ideal opportunity to do that. The father could tell his young son, who has never seen his home world, how it is at home and how he longs to be back there. This would give us so much more insight into the aliens' feelings and motivations. But none of that!

SPOILER Instead of working on the issue of a cultural clash and its consequences, we're just given this rather boring chase for an alien liquid! And why the hell isn't there more inner conflict in Wikus as to where he really belongs? I mean, when he's turning into an alien, obviously this isn't affecting his way of thinking, which would be far more interesting! He could begin to understand the way the aliens think and feel and regret what he did to them earlier, even try to mediate between aliens and humans against all obstacles.END SPOILER

You see, I've got a thousand ideas how to make the plot more interesting, but the producers opted for the most boring alternative and though everything would be fine, if they include a transformer-like robot-thing in the end and have a lot of action and shooting... For me, it was a huge disappointment. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's just that it could have been so much better. And I agree with other reviewers here: I definitely won't watch "District 10", if it is ever released.

Yesterday, watched "Inglorious Basterds" together with my boyfriend and as a German, I really have to comment about it! My expectations were really quite high because I had read that all the characters would be portrayed by actors of the matching nationality, which I regarded as a brilliant idea! I also knew that the story wouldn't be historically correct, but I didn't bother. In my opinion, the cinema is free to alter history, as long as it's good entertainment.

Well, the movie started with the scene about the French guy being visited by SS Colonel Landa - brilliant acting, especially on the part of Christoph Waltz, good story and I loved the switching of languages. (I was a little bit disappointed though that the Americans didn't speak English in the German version, but also German - why not be consistent and let every character speak their mother tongue? - Perhaps that would be to daring for a mainstream movie and you can't expect the average audience to read that many subtitles? I would have appreciated it to hear English spoken in the movie!) Anyway, so far I enjoyed the movie, but the moment those "Inglorious Basterds" entered the screen, that soon changed. Brad Pitt's speech full of hatred already made me frown. Take Nazi's scalps? Be as brutal as possible? - Excuse me, are those the guys I am supposed to sympathize with? - Okay, I thought, it's a Quentin Tarantino movie, so you're bound to hear a lot of language and and see graphic violence. I really enjoyed the plot line with the Jewish cinema owner and the Nazi officer / actor and the whole movie would have been brilliant, if they had just made this the main plot and left out the whole stupid Inglorious Basterds thing! What really gave me the creeps was this scene with the German soldier being beaten to death with a baseball batter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not generally against portraying violence in movies, but it always depends on the context! And it's really unacceptable to portray this violent execution as fun, with cheering and laughing people around, without ever questioning if this is the right thing to do. The "Inglorious Basterds" are the characters the audience is supposed to sympathize with because, obviously, they don't want to be on the side of the bad Nazis, though you see them committing much less bloody crimes on screen than the Basterds. Therefore the audience is supposed to enjoy the beating and take it as a righteous action! Pure mischievous joy! I can see all those teenagers laughing who the next day on the school ground stand by a fight, film it with their mobile phone and then upload it on youtube to have a laugh with millions of users who are just as stupid as themselves! I really couldn't believe it! Come on, in which century are we living, Americans? - Do you first need to have your very own Third Reich before you finally get the fact that such violence is NEVER EVER justified? When will you get it that you stop being the good guys the moment you take up the methods of the bad guys and use them against them? - It's the same all over: Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Inglorious Basterds! It is NOT funny to kill and mutilate people, whatever it is they did! Of course movies can portray people who think killing is funny, but they should never portray them as being good and right! And especially not in the context of the Third Reich! And by the way, does there have to be a "funny" insult against Germans every five minutes? - Why do you so reanimate the old hostilities of World War II? I thought we were over that! In Germany, we have learned our lesson of tolerance and peacefulness. Everyone who enjoys the movie has proved they haven't learned it yet!

Though I certainly don't sympathize with Nazis, the truest moment of the movie was the scene at the premiere of the movie "Stolz der Nation". Three American members of the "Basterds" tried to pretend to be Italians because they thought the Nazis wouldn't notice that they can't really speak Italian. But then Nazi officer Landa turned out to speak Italian fluently, to which Brad Pitt's character could only reply "Grazie". I just thought: "Serves you right, ignorant Americans!" I mean, they have no clue about Germans or Italians or Frenchmen, but they just think they can go into some other countries and kill a lot of people and have fun making a bloody mess in the presumed name of justice.

It's really a pity that a movie with such brilliant ideas has to be so awful, just because it glorifies violence and encourages intolerance! Inglorious Basterds certainly didn't improve my opinion about America and it certainly doesn't improve anybody's opinion about Germany. In recent years, Germany has produced sensitive storys about conflicts of conscience like "The Reader" - the U.S. gives us senseless beating and cheering about violence! Congratulation, Tarantino, for your contribution to international understanding! :(

With "The Perfume" it's like with any blockbuster movie: if the critics praise it, it's horrible - if the critics hate it, it's brilliant.

I had the chance to watch a preview of "The Perfume" tonight and I was very surprised: this movie is really good! Okay, it can't actually make you smell all the scents and odours, but the images and the music allow you to experience the atmosphere and the emotions Grenouille is feeling when he takes in the scents of his environment. You couldn't have done this much better without the use of real scents at theatres.

Although much of the story is told by a narrative voice (mostly quotes from the novel), the movie is still thrilling and exciting all the way. It's a very good adaption of Süskind's novel, sticking to the original plot concerning the major events, leaving away unnecessary subplots (although it's a pity that funny "lethal gas"-plot was cut out!) and shortening long passages. The result is well-constructed movie that is worth seeing.

The actors, especially Whishaw who plays Grenouille, have done a very good job. Like in the novel, Grenouille is an ambivalent character and you never know whether to love him for his genius talent or to hate him for his cruel murders. Whishaw's half-crazy, scary gaze made me shiver. Dustin Hoffman as old and unsuccessful parfumeur Baldini was very convincing... I loved the way he talks to Grenouille arrogantly although he recognizes how much more talent the young man has. Baldini is always good for a laugh.

The only thing to criticize is that the movie is not as brutal as the novel. I think they wanted to avoid the FSK 16 rating and so didn't show much violence, which in my opinion would have been necessary if you wanted the movie to have the same shocking impact on the audience as the novel. For example I was really shocked by the end of the novel - in the movie you hardly see what happens.

However, it's really a thrilling story visualized excellently - go to the movies and watch "The Perfume"! You won't be disappointed.