gema-1

This is an ok series to watch, it is entertaining, keeps you engaged and is nicely paced - some would say slow, but I like it that way. Having said that, there is nothing really really surprising in it and several things that are explained visually are laid out verbally again (and sometimes again), giving the feeling that the director doesn't really trust the viewers to come to their own conclusions (e.g. The whole story about something going into the trash). But ok, no real complaint there.

I found the ending somewhere between good and great. I might be a setup for a second season, but not necessarily. I don't share at all the concerns by other reviewers here, in fact the ending was one of the best parts of the whole series.

What happens is that (nearly) all different stories come together. But once again, from a certain point up (after Andy's "conversation" with the driver of the Lincoln) it was rather clear to me what would happen and I found the rest of the series as a confirmation of my assumptions. Which is ok, most likely I just had a lucky guess.

All in all: this is good for a day where you have nothing else to do, you will not regret watching this and most likely you will (like me) hope for a second season.

I try to love this show and I was ok with the first number of Episodes being slow - Tolkins books themselves are often extremely slow and I saw this in a way both as a reference and a build-up for more. I also accepted the proto-Hobbits, which are not the same as in Tolkien, they lack the realism and come more across like funny creatures from a childrens book.

I waited for the first Episode where things would happen. Well, this one was the one.

There were some really good things in this episode - the horse chase between Galadriel and Eddar (until Helbrand appeared out of nowhere from the opposite direction, without any explanation how that was possible), the music and quite a number of shots, which reminded me a lot of Excalibur, a film I love and hold dear and I like to see the authors taking inspiration from it.

The best thing about this episode (and maybe about the whole series so far) is the silent ambiguity of most characters. The Harfoots are too sweet, but they seem to be ok to leave anybody weaker just behind to die. Galadriel is the force of light, but the way she exposed herself in the discussion with Eddar nearly made her look racist and for sure not fair. Eddar is the next best thing to Sauron we have so far, but his way of thinking is not at all only selfish or evil and I admit as I viewer I can follow his train of thought the best.

But then there are all these scenes with Isildur, which are just dripping of too much greasy meaning and pseudo-philosophy. This character is a shame, there is no depth in him - same way with his father and most of the Numenoreans. Why? This is just sad.

Next are the plot holes: the Numenoreans riding in full gallop to a fight of which they were not informed it takes place. These are the same people which were criticized an episode ago to be too dumb to hold a sword, who are no killing masses of Orcs. They all come from an Island but they are great riders.

The Southlanders leave a fortified castle behind to defend themselves in a village - WHAAAAAAT? What What What? What?? Who wrote this? Who thinks that I would take this show serious after such a scene? The Southlanders also cannot distinguish Orcs from men, celebrate a triumph without having their enemies counted it seems (as the Orcs attack with large numbers just afterwards).

And then the activation of Mount Doom. Man. That was dumb. No explanation, no master plan from the forces of evil. A key is found by chance by a good guy, the bad guys get information about it by chance, they only get it into their hands by accident and then a guy who has no clue about what is going on puts it in the right place and boooom.

It is clear to me now, that this show is not thought through at all. They paid a lot of money and but for sure not for the writers. This is so sad to see, I am deeply disappointed.

I hold it for the show that it doesn't try to imitate Game of Thrones, but unfortunately it doesn't manage at all to be anything on its own. It is just forgettable.

After about 25 minutes the main plot twist was so obviously hinted at, that even I (who usually just gets absorbed into a movie and avoids to think ahead) knew what was going on. At that point a number of things were still open - those were practically not explained. We don't learn what drives the main characters, the ending is a helpless try to not mess the thing up.

The actors are ok, the setting is artificial, I never felt any horror coming up, as it all seemed to be done for an audience from the 1960s maybe.

All in all a movie based on a scifi/horror idea that isn't explained at all, lots of mysteries and questions which are not answered in any satisfying way and some pseudo-mystery setting.

Not worth spending time on.

Whatever you think of Castle Rock, this episode is a very bright moment in TV history. You will not be able to appreciate its full depth if you haven't seen all previous episodes.

"The Queen" is a quiet and intricate meditation about age and fading memories - it plays out in front of a mystery/horror story of which most of the background at this point in the series is not yet resolved. We learn a bit more about the darker events that caused the tragedy of the main characters, but for this episode the main story line is a side issue.

For a while I thought that the makers of this episode wanted to imitate Twin Peaks. Well, even if they started off with such intentions (which I doubt), they found their own, completely independent style on the way. The episode is much more realistic, much closer to the inner life of the character than many movies on similar topics I have ever seen.

The idea to weave the whole episode into situations that viewers of earlier episodes have already seen is not new, but it is executed with amazing perfection.

Nothing in this episode jumps on you. There are moments of pure genius which convey a sadness that nearly made me overlook the greatness of the art.

A wonderful masterpiece.

You have to accept quite a mixture of supernatural and also biblical ideas in order to be able to go along with the movie. If your mind gets triggered every time a ghost-like entity takes some action on screen then you will most likely not be happy here, I can recommend 'tabula rasa' for you, it's also not a shining monument of a TV-series, but it is better than Chambers.

Ok, let's say we go along with all the new-age philosophy of the series. Is it then good?

The first 5 episodes bored me a bit, not because there is nothing happening, but because they re-use a lot of clichés from other horror movies. The series looks like something we have seen again and again.

But this changes by the end of episode 5, where a normal horror movie would have simply put a stop. It then develops more into a thriller. A good one, for a while. But episodes 9 and especially 10 were a total let-down.

The start of episode 10 is badly executed - it is something I have waited for the whole time to see, a stand-off between two characters and it is done in the most uninspired way I could imagine.

The end resolves the main plot and leaves a number of cliffhangers, just to be able to make a second series.

One more thing that bothers me a bit is that the series wants to be for teens, twens and older people as well - which would be ok, but it tries to deliver something for every age group and that just leads to a number of scenes where I feel embarrassed by watching them.

In summare:

• bad: new-age spirtual nonsens
• very bad: beginning of episode 10
• bad: most likely should have been a pure teen-series, but tries to be more
• very good: how it all changed in episode 5
• good: acting
• good: one doesn't know which character is good/bad for a long time

So all in all I give it 6 stars, just to be fair, but it has a strong tendency towards 5.

Higgs Boson, parallel universes, particle accelerators, space stations - what a load of fancy terms, some sound scientific, but in this movie you can rest assured: they will be used in the most illogic and unscientific way you can imagine. Absolutely nothing makes sense here, everything that could be interesting is just used to drag the viewer to the next horror scene or action sequence. It is not only stupid, it is totally boring. Towards the end I was falling asleep.

It is obvious that the authors and the director of this embarrassment never looked into a book about particle physics. They never tried to understand neither the physical basics nor any of the philosophical implications of parallel realities. There are just bits and pieces of two alternate worlds smashed together and the only thing thrilling about it all is how they could get such a story financed.

They have good actors, but it doesn't help here anymore.

The storyline on planet earth is so minimalistic that it practically doesn't exist.

It's not causing a headache, but my brain hurts - this movie is an insult to the intellectual and scientific foundation on which it pretends to build.

I'm confused by the reviews that state that the ending was pointless. The movie starts after something mysterious happened and it never gets explained, but we see the result of it and that - in the end - horrors and wonders are helpless against what makes us human. I don't need a Marvel-Comic explanation why super-hero/villain comes into being, the story was really good and the movie is self-contained and thrilling.

It didn't break any barriers, did not change me or anything like that - it was solid, very very good entertainment and deserves every of its 8 points.

It's clear after the first 10 minutes that something is wrong with the psychiatrist (Ewan McGregor) and from that moment on, the film cannot be taken for real anymore - anything that happens is bound to be a metaphor. Nothing of course can be spelled out clearly, else the thrill/fun/tension would be gone. So people talk confusing stuff and all the details seem important - the whole movie must be important, because it all sound and looks so mysterious, so meaningful, like a over sized jigsaw puzzle. And the music - wow! It really fits in.

The resolution (obviously in the last 5 minutes only) is different from what I expected, but I guess it is even more confusing than the rest of the movie. Nothing very bright.

The movie definitely wants to transport some messages - everything is interwoven, we are all connected with each other, every little move we make counts. Whilst the cause for the whole confusion (which is revealed in the end) is a very realistic situation, what comes out of it (the 1.5 hours before the end) is a confused exercise in psychological common knowledge and esoteric babble.

People say this move is artistic. Well, it's not. It does not transport anything beyond the obvious mainstream believes in how the human mind works in mysterious ways. Just because it is boring does not automatically mean it is art.

One thing I kept reading about this movie is, that it is a meditation about life and how things come into being. This is not exactly true. The movie shows, without really saying it, the history of the universe in a lengthy sequence (about 45 minutes) of pictures from space, the early earth etc - many of those are animated. Most of the views are nowadays well-known and not really fascinating - so the only thing you can find interesting here is that the movie tries to tell "the" story, I guess.

What looks like a scientific approach to the origins of life is in the end only the base, the background, for a religious movie which propagates a monotheistic god.

Throughout the movie light, water, life, "doing good" (grace) are major subjects that are repeated again and again in all possible forms. It is never really said what "doing good" means, but there are example of family members which seem to act not good. The good mother (she is glorified beyond everything - seems she is even better than god) is just dancing around in the garden, flying like an angle at one point, sometimes looking happy, but always worried about the good in the world.

The kids are normal kids and you see mainly one of them growing up and gathering a guilt complex - it would be good, if the movie would be about a child gathering a guilt complex, but it is about god.

In the end there are angles (young, blond, skinny ladies), the light of god and a lot of forgiving and good.

The movie is mostly boring if you do not believe in anything spiritual. There are very few scenes which show you something that has a meaning outside the "there is more to it" interpretation. I liked the scene when the boy broke into the neighbors house, for example - but this movie destroys every good scene with an over-interpretation.

My recommendation: watch 2001 (a Space Odyssee) if you want to see good pictures from space mixed up with a fair amount of mysticism - that movie does not bother you with "I know the truth, just read my pictures right".

Broken Flowers is one of the best movies of the last years. It was slow, had a gentle story, played with the imagination of the audience, was concentrating on beautiful pictures and at every moment showed a tough piece of reality.

And now this: Jim Jarmush makes himself look like a 20 year old student who is staggering through a few fragments of new ideas, creating unnecessary (bohemian) figures, that approach the main character out of nowhere, babble about art, science, movies, music and all follow the same uninspired scheme. I had to wait 40 minutes to get the "riddle" resolved - of course, it is imagination that finally kills the evil realist, who comes along like a mixture of a modern financial mafia guy. Or is it the inner imagination struggling against the coldness of the own pragmatic, realistic personality? Isn't that a plot we have seen numerous times before - in much better films?

The whole thing tries to be subtle and is so blunt and boring, that it is unbelievable that it was made by the same person who did Dead Man, Ghost Dog, Broken Flowers.

I am disappointed. And bored. And currently I do not know, which is the worse feeling of the two.

Steven Spielberg's "Artificial Intelligence AI" is one of the worst movies I have seen so far. The most impressive thing about this film is how it can get more worse and worse with every minute. There is no end to it - after half of the tragedy one thinks that there could be an end to it, but Spielberg just adds more unrealistic things to it. It's a Sci-Fi movie, but that does not mean that it doesn't need to explain anything. It is also a fairy tale, but still the director could have tried to entertain at least some of the grown ups sitting in the audience.

Humans are the cruel ones, the first build up artificial intelligence and then they kill the machines, who all seem to be very nice and full of feelings - although they do not have, only the little boy has. Still these robots talk and act as if their primary mission in "life" would be the protection of the weak and forgiving their destroyers. Oh please Steven, tell us about the Christians in ancient Rome if you want to bring tears in our eyes, but don't come up with a miserable idea that you manage to develop into a great failure.

And then, at the very end of the whole mess, when the aliens hang around and the story has long crossed the point of no return, Spielberg gives the child, that has gone through suffering and pain, a single day of happiness. That's it. I assume this should tell us something about being human and life in general. But it doesn't. It only tries to induce some sentimental feelings in the audience – without succeeding.

The issue of the machine that wants to be human was treated much better by other films, foremost of all "Blade Runner" but also "Bicentennial Man" was an acceptable movie, that is also suitable for younger audiences. Watch those, but avoid AI.

Keane by Lodge H. Kerrigan leads from the first moment into the world of a mentally disturbed person. A man looking for his kidnapped daughter. He is nervous, he is insecure, he tries to think and the more the movie follows him, the less it is clear, how much this person can be trusted. Was the daughter really kidnapped? Does he have a daughter at all? Did he maybe kidnap a girl?

William Keane appears to be a drug addict and a mad man – but is he really or is he just a person that needs help? The movie does not gives answers to this – it just leaves us with William, of whom one gets more and more afraid. When a woman, who lives next to him, starts trusting him and asks him to care for her daughter for a while, the audience just waits for the inevitable tragedy to happen. Every situation that Keane is confronted with offers a possible mistake to be made, a crime to be committed.

Kerrigans movie offers a look into the instability of the mind without giving explanations. It shows a hopeless world and a short flickering of a light at the end of the tunnel – without being pathetic. It takes the audience from a different angle and leaves no other opportunity than to let us be guided by our feelings, as no reason is visible – truth and background are missing. Keane does not need to commit any crime; we do that for him in our fearful minds, while watching the movie.

An extraordinary different movie.

I was skeptical about this movie - there was too much fuss made about it during the last weeks. And again I was wrong. Seymour Hoffmans acting is perfect, not one movement that would indicating that he is not a total eccentric gay. The pictures taken in Kansas need the whole screen and sink deep into ones perception - especially the view of the house in which the murder took place is a story on its own.

But the most intriguing thing about the movie is how the story is told. In the beginning it is all laughing and fun. Then something starts to develop, but nothing is said directly. Scene after scene leads further into doubt and every now and then the thought "he cannot be that much a bastard" flickers up. Capote, who seems not to have a doubt with what he is doing, is shown as a person that still can be understood - in a way. The movie is not a lecture about right and wrong. It is easy to criticize Capote, but it is much more interesting to admit, that his actions can be understood to a certain extend. It's an inconsistent feeling that one is left with after the movie and that is most valuable.

Nevertheless the writing at the end of the movie could have been skipped. It is the only thing that hints towards punishment and I doubt that things are that clear and easy to explain. But maybe that was needed to satisfy a certain audience. (9/10)

A good woman was shown on one of the airplanes I recently sat in. It is unfortunately not in cinemas again, that is truly regrettable.

Helen Hunt and Scarlett Johansson in a film that is based on a play by Oscar Wilde. This is entertainment of a style that is hardly seen nowadays - intelligent, truly funny and all put into beautiful pictures. We can follow Scarlett through all the double meanings and hints that are in this movie and see how she loses her innocence - half in a painful, half in an enjoyable way.

This movie was convincing even on a small airplane screen. A master piece that was not recognized enough when it came out.

I watched this movie because of Kevin Spacey and Donald Sutherland and in the end got disappointed. The two actors are of course great, but Sandra Bullock hops too often through the picture, being dressed temptingly, being smart and being everything else she needs to pretend to be. I don't talk about Matthew McConaughey, he is as slimy as always and they unfortunately gave him the main role in this movie. OK, I could not avoid talking about him.

It is OK to construct a tight story, but Grisham goes to far here. He needs to transport just another moral lecture and spoils it all. So there is this black guy who murdered the rapers of his daughter and he finally gets free because everybody feels pity for him and (that's Grishams stupid trick) the only other alternative would be the death penalty.

So we should let all murders of criminals roam free? What signal is that? At what point can somebody left free, which deed is cruel enough to justify a private murder? Ah, nonsense. And then Matthew in the end in front of the jury, all in tears about the story he thought up last night. Spacey is the only one who makes an impression on this movie - so please watch American Beauty or The Usual Suspects again and see him in a good movie.

Mmm-kay, due to my total lack of motivation to follow any TV series that forces me to sit in front of the screen at a certain time every week, I missed most of South Park. I think I never saw a complete episode.

I don't want to go into details about the movie - it was not made for being described, you really have to see it. But be prepared for the biggest collection of dirty language and the worst exploitation of prejudices, religious convictions and bigotry that ever was assembled. Also put some handkerchiefs next to you - at least I could not avoid the tears.

You will find out a lot of new things during this film, for example that there are grizzly bears (and also fair maidens) in the Alpes and who is "the biggest bitch of all" (this religious truth is known by a French kid, so one has to believe it). If you need more information on what's wrong with these German people, then you will find the shocking truth here and finally you will learn how to find the clitoris, which is exceptionally useful in certain situations.

The movie is a musical and there are some very good songs in it. My absolute favorite is "What would Brian Boitano do", the sound is just great and I want to hear it again and again. But of course also "Uncle Fxxxer", "Blame Canada" and "Kyle's Mom a Bxxxh" are unforgettable jewels.

This movie has nothing in common with intelligence insulting comedies like "Meet the Fockers" or "Along came Polly", it is really rude and bad. And, as a bonus, it spoils your language. You have to f***ing see it.

Lots of things have already been written about this movie. After I saw it yesterday I have read now a lot of statements and critics about it, many of them glorifying, some of them merciless and harsh.

I do not know Johnny Cash too well, but what I know of him I really like and some of his songs I love. Those are simple and straight songs, getting a lot of their magic from his voice. I could write a lot about Johnny Cash and his music. But this entry should be about a movie.

A film cannot be as detailed a biography as a book can be, it has to cut away parts of reality to give those things more space, that should be transported to the audience. This is where director James Mangold had to take some decisions and at least for me he took them well. The movie concentrates on the early years of Cash, it has two major themes in it: the love between J.C. and June Carter (also J.C.) and Johnnys problems that start in early childhood and partly cause his drug addiction. Don't expect more from this.

And don't say "this does not show the whole Johnny Cash" - of course it does not. There are some hundred songs missing, most of his live is not told (the movie ends with the concert at Folsom Prison in the late 60s) and we nearly do not see any scene in which the singer Cash gets glorified into a supernatural being. Yes, there are some scenes like that, especially when he first time sings in the record studio, well - some episodes like that must have happened in his life. In general we are not witnessing the rising of a legend.

The drug addiction is maybe given too much room and has a sort of pathetic taste to it - although I did not think so when watching the movie, I only came across this thought when reading some critics. Nevertheless the addiction was part of Cashs life and it was one that influenced him most likely until his late days. So it is - looking at the person we are talking about here - fair to give this subject room.

What makes this movie more than just the story of a drug addicted hillbilly in love? For a Hollywood production there is a strong sense of reality in it, that mostly is transported by the women in the story. Johnnys wife, who blames him and suffers and June Carter, who never even takes a toe away from the ground and gives the great singer a hard but healing time.

I was most impressed by the singing performances of the two main actors Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon. Letting them sing the original songs and not dubbing that with Cashs and Carters voices was daring, but it works perfectly and makes the whole story more vivid. Both actors do a great job. I always imagined Cash as a man of at least 40, 50 years, never younger. After this movie, my view on him has changed.

It is a good movie, that shows a part of the life and works of Johnny Cash. It does not pretend to tell you the whole story, it does not mystify too obviously, but it entertains you and seems mostly to stick to the truth.