zadok-332-444684 Reviews

Unit 42 (2017–2019)

If You depict a technology: Best make sure You've got a clue.

[5/10 · 9 February 2023]

While the series as such is alright, likable cast and whatnot, it does a horrible job actually portraying its subject: IT and "hacking". I'm not an expert, nor do I need to be to spot a whole lot of ridiculous nonsense.

Medical issues, wounds and guns and whatnot: Those are typically displayed no less ridiculous than this series' "IT". It's normal! Only this is not some slapstick comedy format. This is right along the lines of "being a part of democratic discourse", bringing up modern problems and taking those seriously (or pretending to, anyway). Why bring up modern IT problems only to make it some otherworldly fantasy? To drive us into disbelief? To further confuse those that already fail to keep pace with that breakneck-pace-technology-fetish of ours? It's no good.

It's an effort to bring in realistic "IT heroes", but it's just stupid to do stuff in halves. Either do it proper or let it go.

If You want to go for absurd fantasy magic: Go for absurd fantasy magic! Just don't pretend it's real, and for the love of god don't call it "hacking". *PLEASE*! It does harm.

Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (2022)

When the neglected shines brighter than the stars...

[7/10 · 13 November 2022]

Something weird is happening here. Tales of the Jedi feels like the kit in Disney's Star Wars, a low budget side show that lends more life to the prequels and Clone Wars. It is not here to shine, nor to stand on its own: it plays a supportive role within the franchise as it seems. It fleshes out characters and moves within the tight restrictions of an established timeline. The pre-disney timeline.

This is very far from new hyperdrive mechanics moving the plot. In the films ever epic Star Wars stampedes forward, breaking a tad more than just expectations. In the tales however everything is small, if part of a greater whole. The plot submits to canon, restricting itself severely. In fact these tales aren't even allowed to tell their own conclusions at times, selflessly buffing up other, more prominent titles.

Guess what: It's plain better than the usual junk Disney served of late. It summons up more heart and soul in every episode than most Star Wars series do in a season. It has to draw on the qualities of bygone times to get there, but it does get there and respects what it draws upon.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022– )

For a random stream of hypnotic colors I recommend Your local campfire.

[1/10 · 17 October 2022]

While season 2 is supposed to only be "bigger and better", season 1 is already going for superlatives. Galadriel can do it all, unless it is to die! We got all the people! Everything is a mystery! Realism surely is a misguided quality in a fantasy show, so let's do away with it entirely! Let the world explode, let magic roam free, let physics be damned!

Only problem: There's no story. Without purpose nothing has an impact. It's boring. Impossible feats aren't that impressive if they neither have meaning, nor really have been done.

Oh and 'The Lord of the Rings' ever only is a "franchise" here. It has no artistic connection to Tolkiens vision or world as far as I can tell. Of course in some sense all elves are Galadriel, but this one less than most.

Also...

...

What was I about to say?

Nah, I got bored.

Never mind - it really does not matter.

Altered Carbon: Resleeved (2020)

Expectations are everything

[4/10 · 16 March 2022]

The first minute already quotes Bladerunner and Ghost in the Shell in brief yet unmistakable images and sounds. A narrator explains us the setting, which builds upon Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon. None of these quotes are tied into anything yet. They are just put out there, replacing what should be the film's very own opening sequence. This doesn't bode well.

It's a cyberpunk styled film alright and although it's not great it's not horrible either. At times it relies on us being familiar with other stories, meaning it's not great at introducing its setting and characters. Even so it might deserve a slightly higher rating than mine.

Unfortunately the film claims to build upon a great legacy and thoroughly fails to live up to the high expectations that are tied to just that legacy. Its decent yet foreseeable plot would work just as well in a slightly fantastic feudal Japan I reckon; add a touch of dark magic and it's done. The cyberpunk setting is barely explored at all and there's no philosophical dimension either. Mind the 'classic' cyberpunk is drenched in the twisted normality of that utopian future; those classics breathe existential questions through each and every pore. Suffice it to say: this film is undeserving of the tradition it puts itself into.

He who invokes greatness can't escape being judged against it.

Disenchantment (2018–2023)

Visually pretty nice, but otherwise flat and uninspired

[2/10 · 15 February 2022]

"I'm actually a more way careful driver when I'm drunk. I assume that, just 'cause I've never... I've never driven before." (S01E03)

Yeah. Saw You drive in episode 1 princess. Guess it makes no difference. Giving that one any thought makes it worse no matter how You look at it. This is from episode 3 and so far it seems pretty representative: Flat, in-your-face gags that may at best claim to be utterly stupid on purpose.

Satyre at the expense of fantasy would be a perfectly viable format. Only satyre should be an overdrawn version of something that *exists*, something we like although it is a bit ridiculous. Could be highschool kids that suddenly awake to a world of vampires, or perhaps superheroes... but christmas elves? Who is into christmas elves? It's not a thing. There's no substance to draw from. It has no point. No twist, no witty comment on anything - just plain old stupidity.

What else do we get? Equally pointless violence, some sexual stuff that cares never to cross a line (like... any line), drugs... I can laugh about the stuff I usually watch and feel drawn to, like the ridiculous Game of Thrones sexuality for instance, or stupid stuff I could at least imagine myself doing while drunk. This though? It basically stops at 'a princess drinks a lot'. Haha - hilarious, isn't it? ... No, it's not. It's just more stupidity.

Usually I'd hesitate to review a show after two and a half episodes, but this really doesn't deserve to be watched any further and viewers deserve a warning. Looks really nice and typically Groening in style (+1 for that!), but it's really just bare stupidity.

The fool is supposed to be witty! His displayed 'stupidity' is just a tool that allows us to distance ourselves from his jokes and laugh at him, while actually taking a daringly honest look at ourselves. His 'stupidity' is what allows the fool to dare and criticize us! By pretending to only ridicule themselves fools could dare to mock and mirror the folly of even the proudest kings. Worked for a 1000 years.

This is not it though. This really only ridicules itself. It dares nothing. It tiptoes on the safe side of all our present sensitivities and thereby loses any and all meaning.

Perhaps that's it's last saving grace, the one thing it mirrors true.

Are we really so afraid? Are we such cowardish sensitive morons so as to snuff the life out of every substantial joke? Did we really fall so low, so as to actually deserve this? To rather lie to ourselves, to rather *really* be stupid and blind than dare admit our shortcomings?

Perhaps.

For now I cling to the last straw of dignity I find and... turn off this show.

Raised by Wolves (2020–2022)

Laying the groundwork for an epic - does that even make a story?

[7/10 · 13 December 2020]

"Raised by Wolves" starts with the general premise of children being raised by androids on a foreign planet, against the background of a threat of extinction. So far so good.

It is not the best start for actual immersion, since androids are supposed to sport a rather barren personality, while children have a hard time carrying the burden all alone - at least in a kind of story that isn't aimed at a young audience and "realistically" denies them full agency regarding many of the conflicts depicted. So what is that about? I read it as daring, as a means to keep the audience at a distance, or, put positively, in a state of openness. Still: It took a second attempt to get me into this. It doesn't take long however for more characters to arrive, also we get to know the androids and kids a lot better and slowly ease into it. We hear about a number of different themes, for instance many promising hints regarding the background of that "threat of extinction". Conflicts, different parties and their various backgrounds: Actual "juice" seems to enter the stage, or rather: Some topics worth exploring in best SF tradition with possibly deep implications show *at the horizon*. By that I mean to say: They are hinted at, they are promised to exist and yet take the shape of questions, rather than filling up the core of things - of yet still a bit barren as that core might be.

From there it doesn't just slowly get a central theme in focus, but it questions time and time again what "the central theme" even is. There's many different dimensions that could play the part, but all of them are denied a decision, none of them is allowed to fully step up to our desires to *know*. Like: Anything really. It's all kept vague, we are kept guessing and more and more potential is added.

In a way I found that reminiscent of Game of Thrones: Shoving in more and more houses with different motivations, extending to even more different sceneries, begging the question: What is this even supposed to be about and how on earth is it supposed to make all these ends meet if all the series does is adding more and more open ends? In that regard (and only that) one could compare the two. Only Raised by Wolves is even "worse", or possibly even more "epic", adding as many open ends in one season as GoT did in like five... Can this possibly add up? It could be seen as laying the groundwork, a horizon for world building, with enough open space for a whole universe to potentially fit in.

That's hardly a "story" at this point. It's an open end, but not a cliffhanger: It's more of a huge toolkit with nothing but half-connected parts, none of which is complete yet. If I had to rate that season I may not even call a 1/10 deserved, as there isn't really anything to rate yet. It is however so well done that I thrust myself fully towards giving the benefit of a doubt. All of it is very well done. It has what I love about SF: It is asking questions, it creates the space for philosophical journeys and ambivalence at every corner. It doesn't "cash in" on its own potential and dares to reject the viewer quite openly. This *could* be the start of something truly great.

Perhaps it is the signs of the times: We no longer have that clarity. Our lifes resemble that disorderly state where people can no longer tell what it is about. The time of massive ideologies, being constructed from a beginning towards an end in every detail, is at its end. We no longer know! I may call it idiotic if people refuse to acknowledge even the best proven "truths" we have, yet it isn't just a random madness in some people, but it is our Zeitgeist itself. Perhaps Raised by Wolves merely takes us up on that and doesn't even intend to arrive at a clarity eventually, but holds us suspended in mid air for good. That would not be what I hope for. That would not be that 8/10 I gave not as a correct rating of what's there, but as a cheer at the start of the race. It could still play it's part, with some questions possibly being answered, a proper footing being regained at some point in the future, but the notion of us not understanding as much as we'd like remaining. That's what I hope for, anyway.

It is impossible to judge this. Honestly: My rating is partly like seeing an artist picking up what's formerly been a piece of trash from the street and betting it will become a great artwork in the future.

All I can say is: I am thrilled to see what will come of it. Cheers!

Ava (IV) (2020)

Generic, decent entertainment

[6/10 · 23 August 2020]

It's hard to say what this movie tries to be. An action movie? A spy thriller? A hired killer's psychogram? Jessica Chastain sees to it the latter works, but it doesn't seem to be the intended focus. The "thriller" aspects are rather bland and predictable. If we consider it "decoration only", then one could say it is working in that modest fashion. It is however nowhere near a "deep intrigue". The facade of a spygame may help to establish suspense of disbelief, if barely. Personally I found the few drawn out action scenes a bit misplaced, taking themselves too seriously to be a good Bond'ish "super agent joyride", but still not "realistic" enough to hold my breath in suspense.

Personally I like female action heroes, but if they take several punches from a trained man (be it just that cannon fodder soldier) w/o any visible effect I can no longer go along with that serious attitude. Not that a woman can't believably win - it's just that they should do so in a different fashion. Athletics, superior technical fighting skills, pain resistance, surprising a male opponent with unexpected ferocity: There's many things I can believe. This very feminine agent however should not be asked to pull off the toughness of a Brienne of Tarth. Not even once. That's just killing immersion.

Also it is either unnecessary (for the spy game), or not enough (for an action flic).

Overall nothing is really bad here, but nothing is outstanding either. There's several masterful actors here, starting with Jessica Chastain, but it's not the kind of film to really build on that either. Kind of a waste really.

Everything is decent, some of it pretty good even, but... nothing is committed to. It's things done in halves.

Ultimately I've enjoyed it and didn't spot any ourageous flaws, so the 6/10 can be called deserved. My apologies to the cast here: Simply can't justify a better rating.

Maze Runner: The Death Cure (2018)

Two and a half hours of pure boredom

[2/10 · 21 May 2018]

It's really hard to put into words what this film is about, because nobody makes any sense whatsoever. A bunch of egocentric people on every side fight for vanity, for their utterly stupid version of a good life. Neither could I relate to anybody, nor was there reason to any of it.

Those that fight for mankind's survival are the bad guys, but they (like all others) seem to believe violence, ignorance and self-interest the best means to go about it. The "good guys" fight, kill and destroy for a handful of friends aparently - at the expense of global civilization. Sadly even that "love" doesn't convince: It's just a presupposed facade most of the time. Admittedly this poor excuse for a plot doesn't give the cast much of a chance to convince. Even so it's mostly embarrassing.

Not making sense isn't always a problem for a film, but there's really nothing here. It's dull, flat, meaningless AND stupid.

If this is what we are at mankind is doomed indeed. There is a glimmer of hope however: At least you can freely prevent this cineastic abomination from wasting any time of your life.

The Shape of Water (2017)

What life is about: It is more than just a romance.

[8/10 · 4 April 2018]

First of all "The Shape of Water" is beautiful and magical, a fairytale that is easy to enjoy and fall in love with. That much does not need you to look any further - an enchanting lovestory if ever I saw one, plain as day.

On second glance however it's small, humble scenery, this intimate dream we are invited to share, aims at something much, much more important. Something that may not even be about romance.

We all have, or at least had, ideals. Until we give up, or realize them. Thereby lofty ideals become firmly rooted in reality. Alas! more often than not high ideals become nothing but a facade in the process, a rallying banner used to pretend we'd still know what is what, how to be good, how to do the right thing, or why we became who we are to begin with.

For some the banner is "christianity", others advocate "tolerance" or one of a million other names we've given. What does that even mean? Perhaps we shouldn't swear? Perhaps it requires great strength? Perhaps there's the book telling right from wrong? Almost everybody genuinely tries to do the right thing, and so do this film's characters. Down to the overdrawn bad guy, each in his own fashion.

If you are open to it I am sure you'll feel what it is, what allows this wonderful film's protagonist to humbly walk that path. A path that all others use so much more power, knowledge and discipline to find and follow, yet fail.

The Dark Tower (2017)

An utter disappointment

[3/10 · 1 December 2017]

Look around you: Marvel creates film upon film in its superhero-world, Disney tries to revive Star Wars no doubt intending to turn it into a never ending story, the extremely long and often times drawn out format of manga became a vastly popular format, Game of Thrones is the herald of a new era for long series. The best of the world desperately look for not so much stories as complex worlds to tell unlimited stories in. The whole world of film and pop culture screams "EPIC!".

Stephen King's Dark Tower consists of seven books. It's an epic, if ever I saw one.

Meanwhile this film takes it upon itself to rush through it all in 95 minutes. Of course it is severely suffering from the lack of exploration and depth that is the result.

This could have been the material for something great and it would be right on top of our time to spent hours on world building alone, regardless of the plot. It could have kept us breathless throughout seven films (or seasons), could have held us captive for many years to come. Instead it is just wasted away. Not only that: It is not even a moderately good film that became of it. The rich and deep characters and the many references found in the book are not just "altered" - that would be perfectly fine. It's crippled to the point where it doesn't even make sense anymore. The characters of the film as well as its setting became lifeless cardboard images, the plot is forgettable and meaningless.

In the right hands this epic would have been the world of Stephen King, a brand of its own that allows all of Stephen King's stories to be used for material. The amount of creativity, entertainment, inspiration and money this film simply throws out of the window is truly hard to fathom. It's a crime against pop culture we find here. An embarrassing failure and painful to watch - whether or not you are aware of its original background.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

If you've seen the trailer there's not much left to see

[3/10 · 26 November 2017]

The fact they shot their wad on the trailer is sad in more than one way. Not only are those well done action scenes disappointing rather than impressive if already expected. It is also sad to realize how very little is going on besides those. There's topics some may claim to deliver a message here, vague and cowardly ambiguous as it is. Thing is: Known topics like drug usage & legalization need to at least hint at depth to convince. The lukewarm appeal this boils down to remains utterly superficial though. The first Kingsman was a really good film. Now it wasn't outright brilliant but it had a stroke of genius here and there, scenes that may inspire and possibly change the uptake on the whole secret agent genre for some of us. It made us laugh, too! This one is nowhere near that. It's boastful meaninglessness goes nowhere, amplified emptiness does not fulfill. Perhaps it is supposed to be a funny uptake on American culture. Perhaps a humorous uptake on English class we saw in the first film is supposed to be replaced by a display of "western-style ignorance and megalomania". From where I stand it's neither funny nor insightful. They may have tried to recreate a working recipe and that's not a bad idea. Sadly they went about it woefully uninspired. The best one can say is that they may have attempted for something, but that in itself is not enough. Cooking up some of the old jokes won't do. The characters are as flat and rusty as are those jokes, the action is already known and the "message" unconvincing. The whole thing is sadly bland and pointless. There's barely enough to make a good trailer - as a film it's a decent attempt at best.

Suicide Squad (2016)

Emptiness rarely looks this good!

[6/10 · 11 April 2017]

You watch films looking for an intriguing, witty plot? You think the characters introduced should serve an actual purpose in developing said plot? You want a sort of consistency and continuity that makes it feel "real" or "authentic" in some way?

Stay away then.

No. A good story build upon characters that actually take a meaningful role within that: That's not what this is, nor what it tries to be. It's painfully obvious that the whole film is a promotion project for itself, a nonsense-trip with an attitude. If you care... about anything really: Talk to the hand. It is all about that devil-may-care attitude, about the creation of images that may well carry over into an actually good film to come.

There are some well done "short stories" along the way to nothingness. Some of these are pretty good in their own right. Kind of music clip like. And indeed: The score makes its point accurately. Half the characters are fillers, as if to make it feel more random, chaotic and brightly colourful. Things need to be dumbed down a bit if all you want is a mindless joyride I guess.

It is not a good film BUT it never attempts to be in the first place. Image, attitude and... Ham! That's pretty honest, if nothing else.

Take it or leave it - who cares?

Ex Machina (2014)

Majestic

[10/10 · 10 April 2017]

This film certainly is a bit much to review in anything short of a book. The cover reveals little and you'd be mistaken to only expect yet another "Science Fiction about an AI". It is much more than that.

According to "the plot" it is about a programmer who performs an advanced sort of Turing test onto an AI, Ava. This is where intimate play heads off into a world of subtleties and mind plays, brilliantly enacted by every one involved. It is beautiful.

The Turing test is a milestone in science mind, one invented by Alan Turing - a forefather of modern computers. The original Turing test is performed w/o visuals. An AI and a human merely chat with a proband, who then tries to discern what's the AI and what's the human. Basically the AI is supposed to fool the proband into considering it human. It requires the AI to exert an awareness of the proband's perception of the AI itself, so it can fool him.

Thing is: Turing was gay. He was subsequently charged for "perversion" and ultimately killed himself with a poisoned apple - which is why the once rainbow coloured apple has been read as apple's ode to Turing. Anyway: In the original text Turing first describes the test done by a man and a woman, both pretending to be women, as a "game", tested in chat by a proband who's supposed to figure out who is the woman. The ability of the man to pretend to be a woman is then supposed to test the presence of intelligence. It does not test a given uptake on intelligence but rather defines intelligence. Fault me if you will yet I dare claim the most famous test for the intelligence of an AI is inherently sexual from the start. It is not invented with only an AI in mind. Alex Garland apparently knows that. His film also does not only have an AI in mind and rightly so: We hardly know what "AI" is supposed to mean after all.

That is the centerpiece the film revolves around. Love and perceiving how the other perceives us, empathy if you will, cannot be used as a tool in a strictly scientific test - because we introduce a "tool" we do not understand any more than the thing tested. Is there any purpose in this test? Or in creating an AI for that matter? It transcends all purpose, as it is more of a quest to find our own purpose rather than creating a tool for a specific task or role. The topic is much greater than people think. There are no clear cut answers.

This film is about AI. This film is about love. This film is about cages and their significance for love, intimacy, roles and purpose. This film is about the internet, google and the privacy within our heads. This film is about art. This film is about consciousness in every meaning of the term. This film is about mankind's blind flight into an unknown future. This film is about the meaning of life and our inability to ever grasp it in certainty. All of that is true. None of that holds a grasp on its elusive theme.

A theme that may seal or unseal mankind's fate found it's worthy expression in this masterpiece. Chapeau!

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

A worthy American remake

[7/10 · 9 April 2017]

Yet another classic redone. A good remake should never aim to "replace" the original and GitS thankfully doesn't. Theatre lives by this tradition for centuries. How to get it right? In theatre modern interpretations often look for the substance, the core of a play, and apply it to the present realities. In consequence even clear cut plots get more and more abstracted.

Ghost in the Shell does it the other way around: the rather philosophical original, partly hard to digest not least for western viewers drama wise, gets an "emotional upgrade" in a more personalized and thus more relatable plot. To put it bluntly: the different forces at work all have a face representing them. At least as far as western film language goes it does work as an improvement as a cinema experience and renders it more accessible, more pointed. It is however sacrificing abstraction as it is precisely the absence of the person in favor of the ghost (one could say "soul") the original deals with. Mind "person" originally means "mask", as in the (role defining) masks ancient actors used. Thus it is an image related term that does *not* refer to the abstracted substance "ghost" or "soul" refers to. That said it has not become a mindless SciFi-flic but remains a journey into a future dealing with the modern version of the ancient body/soul problem.

It is to be praised if a film manages to be genuinely different than the original while still interpreting or commenting the same original point. Now one could argue whether or not it actually is the original point it is honouring. It certainly convinced me that its makers made an honest attempt at doing so - and that's all we can possibly ask for. Thus I applaud a well done interpretation, which is of course perceivably different and I dare say "rather American". Nothing wrong with that, as it is an American film.

Although I'd have liked to hear more of the original score referenced I loved some very literal references, scenes from the original redone. These are used skillfully and weave into the plot in a good way: Although the images are "the same" they do play a different role in the plot. That's a great way to honour one's predecessors! The cast, the drama, the plot and characters: it all works out. Specifically Juliette Binoche and Takechi Kitano play brilliant supportive roles, which goes a long way.

All in all I had a great time watching it and can only recommend checking out this film - whether or not you loved the original.

xXx: Return of Xander Cage (2017)

Promises fulfilled

[6/10 · 26 March 2017]

I hate stupid films. Flat characters are boring. Simple films however, simple characters... Nothing wrong with that. Pretension may lead to frustration - simplicity is not to blame. If you embrace what's there, what this film is about, then you won't be disappointed.

It is pretty obvious what you will get. Action and stunts, a wide collection of one liners, beautiful women and good guys that never bother to be in any way "correct". I like it! More importantly: I knew in advance whether I would, and so do you.

Expectations are everything. A film that fulfills all its promises - that's a good film in my book!

Avatar (2009)

Beneath the glossy surface

[8/10 · 20 January 2017]

Cameron really knows his drama. A tear-jerking love story, the heartfelt downfall at its climax: he applies the rules of drama like few others can. That said this reeks of a routine to go for. Despite such skills deserving high praise its repetition can't be said to be the epitome of greatness. On the contrary: besides these qualities we'd like to have some substance. To make things shine is great but a lame standard shining bright is a lame standard still. Nice colours, lots of emotion and baffling CGI: it is almost to be held against a film if all it does is hiding the mediocrity of its plot and its implications ("its meaning" that is). That said Avatar may still be the film that uses 3D technology best. That spells genuine innovation and adds to cinema as a whole. That is a method to be repeated and copied - only that this one is the original and hasn't been copied yet. That's truly commendable and a great feat.

Anyway: I love philosophy, actual meaning in films and something to think about. Even the best and most innovative use of 3D can't cover all that, can it? So yeah... At this point I see a decent film but no more.

There is a lot more to it though. The setting as such betrays a deep insight into the Zeitgeist, into the hidden desires of present time viewers. It is an ode to technology, to the possibility to shape one's self as well as connecting to others. At the same time the demolition of the old and the bringers of this technology are put in a harsh light. Indeed: we do not trust our own progress. We love it and fear it at the same time. We wish for unlimited possibilities, the transcendence of time, space and body, yet we also wish for stability, harmony and peace. It is impossible to fulfill the conflicting desires of our time. Or is it?

Avatar manages to combine the conservative and the progressive and that is not a small feat. Living as an "Avatar", like me being Mario in a Video Game, is where it starts. Right into the promises of the past: actually meaningful human relations, breaking things down to the eternally important parts of life, a harmonious tradition. The clash is quite literal: the colonial high-tech army against the natives of a paradise, living in harmony with themselves and their nature.

However: the Na'Vi do not just work as a safe harbour, a bastion against the flood of progress. They also bring a promise we know as new, as a part of progress in our own world. They can "upload" their experiences, "download" the past and connect to other living beings by "jacking in". That is exactly how they "become one with nature", how their "natural", "traditional" lifestyle works. They manage to unite our conflicting desires and truly appeal to something most people do not even see. It is keen insight that looks immensely deep what is required to create this specific instantiation of a superficially glossy fantasy world. It's the "Internet Indians", the unity of everything, that many oh-so sophisticated viewers overlook when complaining about the flatness of this eye-candy.

Avatar holds a grasp on THE desire of our time. There is substance. Since "Matrix" it is customary to have a film claim depth. Where Matrix actually does hold depth, although not behind every Greek name and wisecrack reference, many others did not. Lots of references, likening one's film to insightful classics: people see depth where it is supposed. This one on the other hand appeals to emotions and thankfully never really pretends to be a piece of philosophy. Only that it is. It truly is a milestone.

If I wouldn't detest the plastic perfection, the glossy finish and the flat plot I'd rate this even higher. Even so I can't help but acknowledge the mastery this film was done with as well as its creators' insights into the big questions of our time. Truly a great film!

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

A new hope

[7/10 · 17 January 2017]

What do we expect? Yet another StarWars installment, Disney's uptake on an eternal story, on a supposedly meaningful universe to tell infinite stories in. That's not the stuff of legend.

With those expectations you certainly can't complain. Disney continues to nourish Star Wars back to health, adding some grim, dark side to this universe. It is a rather safe approach, using the biggest untold yet referenced mission the good old films had to offer. The characters are likable, the force is rescued from overuse and receives some mystic balm. Yet again RedLetterMedia delivered Disney's road map - not a bad thing. The cameos were a bit overdone and first get us into the film to then question the film's own comfort as a stand alone. All in all a job well done - no more and no less. The routinely qualities Disney brings in are exactly what Star Wars needed after George Lucas' debacle. However: it remains to be seen whether Disney allows innovation and growth. They do continue gathering the right ingredients to make it possible. Although it is necessary, even commendable, to cling to safety and stability for now the same concept would come down to morbid necromancy after half a dozen more films like this. They'll need courage and a keen eye later down the road, to allow Star Wars to actually change, to offer new stories in an old universe. For now it couldn't be any better. There is hope for the Jedi universe.

Decent entertainment, professional through and through. Overall a good film and worth recommending to all the Star Wars fans out there. 7/10

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

It's nice.

[6/10 · 7 January 2017]

In times where any notion of people being different in a film tends to go along the lines of "Imma firin mah Lazor" it certainly is refreshing to revert to actual fantasy. The subtleties in everything, the colours slightly off, the 'different' familiar and grotesque, dreamy and dreadful: it's why we love Tim Burton. More timeless and classy than any X-Men could ever be. Glimmering moments, just shy of being key to anything, offer their full heart to enchant us onlookers.

Now that's all fine & proper but somehow it is off. Or perhaps, speaking of Burton, not off enough, if that makes any sense. Something's missing anyway.

Tim Burton convinced me of his mastery with many memorable films, until directing the second-most disappointing film of all times (after Star Wars Episode I): Alice in Wonderland. He appears to fall into routines. Then again even the storytelling deteriorated steeply, to the point where even the routines were off. Alice was plain horrible. This film is not horrible but it also isn't what I hoped for. It isn't radiating the heartfelt bittersweet Tim Burton so aptly summoned throughout his career. The story is some sloppy, interchangeable standard. The characters sparkle here and there yet never come to shine. He did not pour his heart into this one it appears.

Also, as an Eva Green fanboy, I know what she's capable of. Tim Burton didn't use her to her fullest, didn't allow her to consume us, the children or a mediocre Tim Burton. She went starving. Eva Green sure plays her part well nonetheless, nuanced and shiny in broken perfection. It's just that this whole film is incomplete, done in halves. Specifically as an admirer of Burton's works I need to conclude: this is not it.

"Do. Or do not. There is no try." - Master Yoda

The Neon Demon (2016)

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

[7/10 · 7 January 2017]

It is a mistake to consider this a film about the "evil fashion industry" ruining some innocent country girl. That is not it. That is not the demon. We get to see quite some Neon alright - a half-colour that appears to carry from fashion and art all the way to dystopian dreams of artificial sheep. It goes well with mirrors. What is the demon though?

It's her. She herself pledges guilty. She is dangerous and destructive, sowing sorrow and despair. Although she appears to not do much of anything, everything revolves around her still. The appeal of innocence, mouldability and availability is more decisive than her beauty. Her charms lie in awakened desires that are not to be fulfilled. Like Helena, like the written "Calista", she doesn't do anything but rather inspires evil in others.

She is victorious. Her essence is contained, spreads its evil seed further and further in consumption.

Now this is all pretty neat but is it really the message here? Impressive images are sparsely provided with content, showing that this film was genuinely meant to offer a certain depth while not really closing a container to hold anything. An Abyss? In any case a rather vague series of expressions. The stronger these expressions become the more it feels like a bucking bull ride rather than an arrow in true flight.

If his vision is so great I'd consider it sin to not commit further, to not make it digestible to a reasonable degree. Perhaps Nicolas Winding Refn can see far. However: he's not very good at showing his findings to others I am afraid. Hardly any film had so many shallow and obviously wrong interpretations in its reviews, just like hardly any film fails as hard to make a point and get it transmitted. Even if I managed to shed some light here - this is the bare bones, no more. Is there any purpose, any love in these ideas? Is this film good? Yes: there is art in this. The Neon Demon appeals to our hidden desires, to some kind of half-natural animal inside ourselves, in its neon images. It does not leave me satisfied at all. Who knows? Perhaps I am not even supposed to be. Perhaps this film is just as demonic as is its subject.

"You must have a cigarette. A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied." - Oscar Wilde

Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Sophisticated bluntness does have a point here

[6/10 · 28 December 2016]

This film starts with strong images and picks up a number of deep topics. Although most of those are not followed and remain little more than a reference, "to art in general" and the like, it does so in a sensitive way. Quickly emotion, characters and mystery kick in. An actual plot is first hinted at, then developed. Different layers intertwine and give the film a different direction, turning towards metaphor. The well established grim and sober tone is contrasted by its disruptions, its layers giving relieve to one another. Unfortunately that ends up draining suspense.

Ultimately the intricate designs collapse to form a straight forward, even blunt message. Personally I'd say it adds a truly valuable piece to a modern puzzle of social roles and order. That value can be said to redeem the disappointment I felt upon complexities' collapse.

Alas it remains questionable to make a film so overly pointed, to make it all about sending a plain message. Even if it is a good one: it costs. Therefor this good film only gets a 6/10 from me.

"The theater is for entertainment. There's an old saying, if you want to send a message, call Western Union." - Woody Allen

Maximum Ride (I) (2016)

Best 3 I ever gave

[3/10 · 19 December 2016]

"Filmed on an iPhone and post-produced on a home computer this would be a great debut" ... is what I'd like to say. Unfortunately it is no such thing. It is blunt and cheesy from the start, which is fair: you can't say you didn't know what's coming. In parts that cheesiness came up so violently - I had a sudden urge to laugh. That must be what makes a film "so bad that it gets good again".

I guess the cast "holds the line", so it worked for me.

In fact the scenes all have purpose. One could fault a lack of subtlety but one can't fail to see a working plot.

I was amused. I found it terrible.

Anomalisa (2015)

9 out of 10 people will probably not like it.

[8/10 · 9 September 2016]

Let's talk 2001 - A Space Odyssey. A masterpiece! But... really? Did you watch it? Did you prevent all the praise from altering your memory? Let me remind you: it has long, drawn out sequences of utter boredom, flat generic characters without any depth whatsoever, overly technical meaninglessness throughout most of it. It is truly anti-immersive. Heck, for everybody who's "so into it" it has a three minutes black screen, mockingly called an "Intermezzo", to kick you out of it! So honestly: did you *really* enjoy it?

Eventually I did. After writing a paper about it in a philosophy class, learning to appreciate it. Before? Not so much. It is literally painful to watch. You know that gut feeling somewhere between shame, boredom and some unnamed fear. Tormenting truly. It is *meant* to be like that. To cause that sort of pain, the loss of control, the boredom: it is a thin line and hard to get right. Even if hitting the spot it is not entertaining - nor meant to be.

Why don't I refer to the film this is supposedly about? Well: there hardly is an easy to name plot and saying anything meaningful about it would likely result in a spoiler. The feel, despite a few comic reliefs, is very reminiscent of 2001 as I see it. That's not referring to the quality - I'll leave that to you to judge. Personally it really touched me. That's not the same as saying that it is great, let alone that you'd "have to watch it". Stay away if you just want some fun.

Perhaps I can give one thing away: puppets really do allow to depict sexuality without being pretentious, which is extremely hard to do. Other very human things, like a specific uptake on beauty, could not have been done this well had it been life actors. The monotony that's a centerpiece here also relies heavily on these puppets in order to be shown without attracting attention. That's extremely well done and a testimony of the form being correctly chosen to carry the content.

The 5th Wave (2016)

Mildly entertaining run off the mill Alien Invasion

[5/10 · 23 March 2016]

First off I didn't regret watching it. I'd say a six is a pretty decent film and might even be recommendable if you are just looking for yet another film of that genre. This one is almost like that but has too many minor flaws to have that six. E.g. Cassie suddenly knows things we didn't see her finding out. Many supposedly dramatic events are predictable to the point of losing all impact. It is overall way too bland and cheesy. The effects are perfectly fine but not a major plus either.

The background story is actually pretty good, although not that innovative and basically the umpteenth uptake on Wells' War of the Worlds. Mind about every Alien Invasion film is an uptake on War of the Worlds for good reason and this one did well in that regard. Better than Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" background story wise but that admittedly doesn't mean too much. Wells' 1938 radio transmission supposedly fooled over a million people into believing in an ongoing alien invasion, reported live. While no film could possibly achieve that nowadays a mild shudder may have been possible and refreshing.

Supposedly The 5th Wave is a rather faithful adaptation of the book. Once we read a book we bring our own well developed imaginations and fill out blanks by drawing on the book. The events may no longer need to be explained as much. We forgive almost any small flaw as long as the images do not contradict our own. This film is probably good at that. It may also be its greatest flaw. Books take their time. Films do not. The choice to keep almost everything in the film leaves little room to develop and prepare the many events. It may be the very reason why it appears as bland and cheesy to a non-reader, who does not bring a more complete background. Consequently a reader may appreciate the film much more than I do.

All in all probably not the worst choice if you are decided on watching TV tonight yet not really worth looking after.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013–2020)

Nice entertainment, awful SF

[6/10 · 21 February 2014]

There is a bunch of "Agents" flying round the globe in a plane doing "missions". Secret Organisations, Alien Artifacts, superpowers. Somehow the X Files popped up in my head: mysterious happenings are investigated, aliens exist and a bunch of SciFi fantasies also come true. Solid entertainment. Not a Science Fiction nor Superhero story though but a mystery series. (Errata: this was mid 1st season - it takes a while for the common SF "superpower" elements to kick in yet they eventually do)

True Science Fiction? Jules Verne makes an awful read mostly: a voyage to the moon, an adventure 20000 leagues under the sea - described in minuscule details. In so many details in fact that the story reads like a highly technical report at times. If you read Philipp K Dick - the father of so many SF movies - you'll find simple ideas at the core of many stories. Nothing new actually - seeing the future for instance is an ancient idea. What makes it special is the world around these phenomena: it is actually thought through. How would the world react to someone having such abilities? How do "normal people" or "the society" interact with that? To put it in a nutshell: SF thinks things through. It takes a dream and takes it as serious as it gets, escalating it until a whole new world comes into view.

This series however states that "the events of New York" (aka the movie) have changed the world yet we never see how normal life has changed. It's but a bunch of secret organizations and a handful of gifted individuals that popped up while the whole world of everyday life apparently remained entirely familiar and unchanged. After an alien invasion. Yeah, sure... That's actually more "fantastic" than any "alien artifact" or "superpower" could ever be. It's down to the root conservative in the extreme. That's not SF at all. There is no vision of a different world but merely a bunch of "mysterious phenomena". Thus it is a mediocre series with cheesy superpower SF elements. Mostly good if mindless entertainment without any hint of philosophical reflection (as commonly found in SF). It could do with a darker atmosphere, the characters are too clean and stereotypical yet I really enjoyed watching it so far.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Nothing special besides the initial Alien attack

[5/10 · 9 January 2014]

The initial invasion is brilliantly depicted. The sound design is just awesome. I bet those scenes can be reused to make a really good movie.

The rest is just one of a million "american father tries to save his family in peril" stories. One of the war-based ones. Not among the best of those although Tom Cruise makes a more likable and less stereotypical father than most. Usually it's an old fashioned patriarch. Tom Cruise is more of an supposedly irresponsible young guy with a big heart. Apart from that: lots of special effects, a variety of Sci-Fi threats, a not too complicated story in many small adventures.

Well that's it I guess.

Oh wait: one thing about the original might be worth mentioning. The intro contains a passage that somehow doesn't fit this film at all as I see it. The neat assortment of good and evil this film brings about somehow isn't to be found in this one...

Here it is: "And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?" -from "War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells