Overall, this movie provides 90 minutes of light-hearted fun. It's predictable and silly, but at the same time cute and entertaining. The first movie was a modern version of mostly the first Hanni & Nanni book, following the original story closely. Unfortunately, the filmmakers felt the need to stray from the books and invent unnecessary villains, far-fetched subplots, and chaos for the sequel, so it lost some of its charm. I wish they hadn't done that. I also missed some of the students from the previous movie. If you liked the first movie, you will probably enjoy this one, just not quite as much.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Hello, My Name Is Doris
(2015)
A delightful Must-See Movie
22 March 2016
This movie is absolutely delightful (and that is not a word I regularly use for anything). I enjoyed every moment of it and based on the laughs, sighs, and "oh no, don't do that"'s I heard, the rest of the audience did as well.
It's a coming of age story with an extremely late bloomer as the main character. We're all used to young teenagers acting irrationally around their crushes and may even remember our own embarrassing missteps. Now picture a hilariously kooky Sally Field going through the same motions while being advised by a 13 year old and you have "Hello, My Name Is Doris".
Most of the audience members seemed to be upwards of 50, but anyone old enough for romance can relate to the story. In fact, Sally Field's age almost doesn't matter - it's only an extra obstacle she has to overcome while wooing her crush (and there are many). All of her personal struggles make sense for someone her age and with her background, but could also apply to someone in their 30s.
The whole cast is amazing and there is great chemistry between Max Greenfield and Sally Field (who is absolutely stunning). I also enjoyed seeing Tyne Daly as the best friend and hating Wendi McLendon-Covey as the pushy, uncaring sister-in-law.
While the expression "roller-coaster of emotions" is a bit cliché, it definitely fits in this case. There are some powerful moments that bring on the feels as well as many laugh-out-loud ones. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time and 10/10 hardly seems enough. If you like coming-of-age stories, then this is a Must See for sure!
It's a coming of age story with an extremely late bloomer as the main character. We're all used to young teenagers acting irrationally around their crushes and may even remember our own embarrassing missteps. Now picture a hilariously kooky Sally Field going through the same motions while being advised by a 13 year old and you have "Hello, My Name Is Doris".
Most of the audience members seemed to be upwards of 50, but anyone old enough for romance can relate to the story. In fact, Sally Field's age almost doesn't matter - it's only an extra obstacle she has to overcome while wooing her crush (and there are many). All of her personal struggles make sense for someone her age and with her background, but could also apply to someone in their 30s.
The whole cast is amazing and there is great chemistry between Max Greenfield and Sally Field (who is absolutely stunning). I also enjoyed seeing Tyne Daly as the best friend and hating Wendi McLendon-Covey as the pushy, uncaring sister-in-law.
While the expression "roller-coaster of emotions" is a bit cliché, it definitely fits in this case. There are some powerful moments that bring on the feels as well as many laugh-out-loud ones. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long time and 10/10 hardly seems enough. If you like coming-of-age stories, then this is a Must See for sure!
The Last Song
(2010)
Positively Surprised
1 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Before seeing this movie I wasn't surprised to read negative reviews for it. After all, we're talking about Miley Cyrus here, who is the number one celebrity of her age group and fame often brings overly harsh criticism.
I did not read the book, so I'm just going to judge the movie. I knew it'd be romantic and I knew it'd be sad. That's what Nicholas Sparks is usually all about. If you don't like that, this isn't going to be your kind of film.
That being said, I was very positively surprised by the credit given to the feelings and abilities of young adults in this movie. There is often a kind of prejudice that teenagers' cannot have complex feelings that should be taken seriously. This story is all about a young adult, though, and the movie deals with her first love as well as her relationship with her family, and how she handles loss. There are very few movies that explore these issues seriously and solely from the point of view of the young adult, which was very refreshing to me.
I was also impressed by Miley's performance. Hannah Montana didn't require a lot of serious emotions, so I was curious to see how she would handle this material. Especially in the scenes with Kinnear (who is an awesome actor) she is very believable. Pretty much everyone in the movie theater was crying. If you get that type of response from your audience, you did your job.
I also felt myself smiling and even grinning during the more lighthearted scenes, which also indicate great performances. Eliciting emotions in your viewers is what acting is all about. Unlike many other actresses of her generation, Miley isn't afraid to not look perfect at all times (which would have weakened her performance). She pouts and storms and cries and laughs out loud, all the while assuring the audience of her natural charms.
This movie is not super-exciting or full of action. It's about people's feelings. It's calm and melancholy and cute and sad. If you like that kind of movie you should go see this!
I did not read the book, so I'm just going to judge the movie. I knew it'd be romantic and I knew it'd be sad. That's what Nicholas Sparks is usually all about. If you don't like that, this isn't going to be your kind of film.
That being said, I was very positively surprised by the credit given to the feelings and abilities of young adults in this movie. There is often a kind of prejudice that teenagers' cannot have complex feelings that should be taken seriously. This story is all about a young adult, though, and the movie deals with her first love as well as her relationship with her family, and how she handles loss. There are very few movies that explore these issues seriously and solely from the point of view of the young adult, which was very refreshing to me.
I was also impressed by Miley's performance. Hannah Montana didn't require a lot of serious emotions, so I was curious to see how she would handle this material. Especially in the scenes with Kinnear (who is an awesome actor) she is very believable. Pretty much everyone in the movie theater was crying. If you get that type of response from your audience, you did your job.
I also felt myself smiling and even grinning during the more lighthearted scenes, which also indicate great performances. Eliciting emotions in your viewers is what acting is all about. Unlike many other actresses of her generation, Miley isn't afraid to not look perfect at all times (which would have weakened her performance). She pouts and storms and cries and laughs out loud, all the while assuring the audience of her natural charms.
This movie is not super-exciting or full of action. It's about people's feelings. It's calm and melancholy and cute and sad. If you like that kind of movie you should go see this!
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
(2009)
If you loved the novels, you'll love the film!
20 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I just read through some "professional" as well as viewer reviews and as I suspected they were mostly negative.
Well, I am going to review this film while keeping in mind who it was intended for: Teenage Girls. Now the novels happened to appeal to a much larger audience than that, which is why so many people were super-excited to see both Twilight and New Moon. That doesn't change the fact that the whole story is still intended for female teenagers.
Is it long? Yes. Is it very slow paced, with many intense emotional moments? Absolutely. The film follows the book. If Weitz had changed the story to match typical film structures or left out the readers' most favorite parts, a gazillion people would have been disappointed. I think it's better to have some old haters mock the movie than die-hard fans be disappointed. The movie is not an artistic masterpiece, but it's not supposed to be. It's not trying to win an Academy Award, so I don't judge it by comparing it to those kinds of movies.
As a fan of the series, I loved the film. Weitz did a great job turning a novel that basically describes feelings into a film that entertains every second of its two hours. Technically, Weitz far surpassed Hardwicke's Twilight as well. There was one awkward cut to Edwards face that threw me off a little, but that's nothing compared to all the technical errors in Twilight. There were several references to the first film that gave the two movies a connection. I appreciated that, especially since the director changed.
As before, the actors have a great chemistry. And especially the three Volturi and Dakota Fanning were awesome new additions. Too bad there's not enough time to properly flash out every character. Rosalie and Esme had about a line each.
One reviewer said that it is almost impossible to follow New Moon without having read all the books. That's probably true. And if you haven't read the novels, Bella's illusions and the wolves might even be comical to you. And you might roll your eyes at Jacob's nakedness even though that choice had nothing to do with wanting cause hysterics among the teenagers.
My opinion is: If you loved the novels, you'll probably love the film.
Well, I am going to review this film while keeping in mind who it was intended for: Teenage Girls. Now the novels happened to appeal to a much larger audience than that, which is why so many people were super-excited to see both Twilight and New Moon. That doesn't change the fact that the whole story is still intended for female teenagers.
Is it long? Yes. Is it very slow paced, with many intense emotional moments? Absolutely. The film follows the book. If Weitz had changed the story to match typical film structures or left out the readers' most favorite parts, a gazillion people would have been disappointed. I think it's better to have some old haters mock the movie than die-hard fans be disappointed. The movie is not an artistic masterpiece, but it's not supposed to be. It's not trying to win an Academy Award, so I don't judge it by comparing it to those kinds of movies.
As a fan of the series, I loved the film. Weitz did a great job turning a novel that basically describes feelings into a film that entertains every second of its two hours. Technically, Weitz far surpassed Hardwicke's Twilight as well. There was one awkward cut to Edwards face that threw me off a little, but that's nothing compared to all the technical errors in Twilight. There were several references to the first film that gave the two movies a connection. I appreciated that, especially since the director changed.
As before, the actors have a great chemistry. And especially the three Volturi and Dakota Fanning were awesome new additions. Too bad there's not enough time to properly flash out every character. Rosalie and Esme had about a line each.
One reviewer said that it is almost impossible to follow New Moon without having read all the books. That's probably true. And if you haven't read the novels, Bella's illusions and the wolves might even be comical to you. And you might roll your eyes at Jacob's nakedness even though that choice had nothing to do with wanting cause hysterics among the teenagers.
My opinion is: If you loved the novels, you'll probably love the film.
Goya's Ghosts
(2006)
One of the best movies I have seen this year!
13 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie a few days ago in Germany and I was very surprised that many critics did not like it. It was the first movie I have ever watched without anybody leaving the room until the very last second. Usually I find myself alone watching the credits. Nathalie Portman has to portrait three completely different kinds of women, young Inés, old Inés and Alicia. I think that an actress that is able to do so convincingly has to be very talented. As young Inés she is lively and charming, likes to laugh and seems to be bright and without any concerns. Years of prison make her an old, dirty person who has lost her mind. She desperately wants to have her daughter back to whom she gave birth shortly after being imprisoned and raped (?). She doesn't realize that her daughter must be all grown up and 'adopts' a little baby she finds in a tavern. Alicia, her grown-up daughter, is a prostitute, strong-willed and without any feeling of shame. Javier Bardem plays Alicia's father, a very dominant man. At first he belongs to the inquisition, but when Inés' father proves his believes wrong, he needs to flee the country and turns to the French Revolution. He sticks to his new believes even when he faces death. Therefor, he's not the plain bad person he seems to be at the beginning, but somebody who is in search of the truth, power and money. He's a loving husband to his wife later on in the movie. Every character develops throughout the film in a very logic and convincing way. Even Goya, who is the linking chain between the other characters, turns from a lively and funny person into a serious one. I loved the way everybody was connected to each other and how blindness and a few wrong decisions can destroy lives.
I enjoyed every minute of this movie, it has great actors and a great story. I will definitely watch it again.
I enjoyed every minute of this movie, it has great actors and a great story. I will definitely watch it again.
Poseidon
(2006)
Great!
13 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A movie directed by Wolfgang Petersen with music composed by Klaus Badelt can be nothing else but brilliant. And 'Poseideon' definitely proves me right. At first I thought it might be a cheaper version of 'Titanic', but besides from the fact that both movies are about a ship-catastrophe, they couldn't have less in common. Usually those kinds of movies are far too long and get boring after some time. This one is only 1 hour 38 minutes, but they are filled with tension. The main characters are introduced shortly, then the waves comes and the tragedy begins... within the first 10 to 15 minutes! I liked Josh Lucas and Kurt Russell together. Their characters weren't especially complex, but they did manage to make them believable. The fact that Kurt Russell's character dies at the end makes the whole story more real and less Hollywood - it's not fair who lives and dies in real life either (I hope the people who were involved with 'War of the Worlds' read this). The characters may be a little stereotyped... Everybody who watches it can somehow identify with one of them. There's the homosexual, the young heroic guy, the mother and her little boy, the overprotective father with his grown-up daughter, the brat, etc. Those could have been a little more complex, I admit it. The story, though, is very interesting, full of tension, love, shocking scenes, desperation, heroism and tragedy. The viewer feels connected to the characters, one knows about their lives and some personal things, so seeing them die (partly) makes one aware of the great catastrophe.
United 93
(2006)
Impersonal, unemotional.
6 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to say anything bad about a movie that deals with this topic, but it is equally hard for me to say anything good about it. So let's just see it as what it is, a movie.
The director emphasized on the fact that the people on the plane were normal people, no heroes. They were like me and you and the story is about those normal people acting like heroes. Usually movies have some kind of filter, so watching it really makes you aware that it is only a movie and not real. This one though could have been made with a usual digital camcorder that many people have at home. The idea was a good one, it reminded everybody again that all this really happened. Sitting in a movie theater though, only gave the impression of bad quality. They had great, unknown actors, but they didn't take advantage of them. The first part of the movie shows the procedures of getting onto a plane. Everybody knows that this is not very exciting. Then you see a lot of people sitting in a room controlling the planes etc. on their monitors. They are talking in their headsets, giving orders, telling others what they heard. Each shot throughout the movie is about 2 seconds long, maybe even shorter. Sometimes there is a conversation that lasts longer, then you see those people talking in a fast change of perspectives, from the front, back and the sides. Most of the times you only see a lot of different people every 2 seconds giving orders, in the background there is constant talking. Yes, it showed how unprepared the US was for such an attack and that those people were in a shock and everything was stressful. But after one hour I could hardly stand those voices anymore. Just imagine a hundred people constantly talking at you. That's how it felt. It doesn't only look like some inexperienced private person used his camera to shoot the movie because of the filter, but also because of the camera work. Let's just say it makes you dizzy after a while. Again, the intentions were good, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned before, they had good actors. The ones on the plane especially. The problem is, you hardly see them. After two hours you have no connection to them, you know almost nothing about them. They are still strangers, so thinking about it as only a movie, I didn't care about them. The last 20minutes of the movie were touching, but not because of the great movie. It was, because I knew that all this truly happened and it touched me on the day that it really happened. The movie just reminded me of the feelings that I had that day. All those media they used to make it look real, stressful and hectic also draw the attention away from the victims and their family and friends. It makes the story less emotional. I only felt like crying when I saw those people on the plane calling their relatives. Why not showing the relatives? Why not letting the viewers get to know those people in private? That's what it should have been about, getting to know the people that did something heroic. Instead, you see 1.5 hours of strangers getting onto a plane and strangers giving orders into their headsets.
The director emphasized on the fact that the people on the plane were normal people, no heroes. They were like me and you and the story is about those normal people acting like heroes. Usually movies have some kind of filter, so watching it really makes you aware that it is only a movie and not real. This one though could have been made with a usual digital camcorder that many people have at home. The idea was a good one, it reminded everybody again that all this really happened. Sitting in a movie theater though, only gave the impression of bad quality. They had great, unknown actors, but they didn't take advantage of them. The first part of the movie shows the procedures of getting onto a plane. Everybody knows that this is not very exciting. Then you see a lot of people sitting in a room controlling the planes etc. on their monitors. They are talking in their headsets, giving orders, telling others what they heard. Each shot throughout the movie is about 2 seconds long, maybe even shorter. Sometimes there is a conversation that lasts longer, then you see those people talking in a fast change of perspectives, from the front, back and the sides. Most of the times you only see a lot of different people every 2 seconds giving orders, in the background there is constant talking. Yes, it showed how unprepared the US was for such an attack and that those people were in a shock and everything was stressful. But after one hour I could hardly stand those voices anymore. Just imagine a hundred people constantly talking at you. That's how it felt. It doesn't only look like some inexperienced private person used his camera to shoot the movie because of the filter, but also because of the camera work. Let's just say it makes you dizzy after a while. Again, the intentions were good, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned before, they had good actors. The ones on the plane especially. The problem is, you hardly see them. After two hours you have no connection to them, you know almost nothing about them. They are still strangers, so thinking about it as only a movie, I didn't care about them. The last 20minutes of the movie were touching, but not because of the great movie. It was, because I knew that all this truly happened and it touched me on the day that it really happened. The movie just reminded me of the feelings that I had that day. All those media they used to make it look real, stressful and hectic also draw the attention away from the victims and their family and friends. It makes the story less emotional. I only felt like crying when I saw those people on the plane calling their relatives. Why not showing the relatives? Why not letting the viewers get to know those people in private? That's what it should have been about, getting to know the people that did something heroic. Instead, you see 1.5 hours of strangers getting onto a plane and strangers giving orders into their headsets.
7 Zwerge
(2004)
Funny!
23 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie, because I had promised my little sister to join her. I have seen all the other Otto-movies, because my family loves him, but I don't really think he's funny. So I went to the movies with a very negative attitude, thinking that I am going to be terribly bored. That really wasn't the case! Although everybody knows the basic story, the film is still interesting and I had to laugh and smile a lot of times. Sure, it is very stupid, but this is that kind of movie that is so stupid, it's already funny again. The comedians are great, except Harald Schmidt who should stick to offending people, that's what he is good at. I loved Nina Hagen as the bad stepmother and Ruediger Hoffmann as the person in the mirror was just hilarious! The only bad thing about the movie is the song that they are singing all the time. You won't get it out of your head afterward! Everybody who just wants to be entertained should watch this!
Date Movie
(2006)
Worst movie ever?!
20 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was definitely the worst movie I have ever watched. It was the first time in my life that I saw people leave the theater! Although I have to admit that I didn't like the "Scary Movies" and was prepared for probably not liking this one, it was worse than I expected.
This movie is supposed to make fun of more or less popular romantic comedies. The basic story is a mixture of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", "My best friend's wedding" and "Meet the parents", but there are also parts out of "Bend it like Beckham", "A lot like love", "Harry and Sally", "Bridget Jones", "Hitch", "Notting Hill", "Pretty Woman", "Sweet Home Alabama", "What women want" and "The Wedding Crashers", just to name a few. The problem is that the jokes are not funny. They are either disgusting or stupid, so instead of making the people laugh, it makes them look away nauseated or roll their eyes. I mean, does anybody think beating a homeless guy is funny? Another problem that I had was that I liked the movies that this one is trying to make fun of. So it made me kind of aggravated. I can understand that people parody real bad movies and make a great comedy out of it, but why turning a lot of great movies into one that only the word "cheap" could describe properly?
Why is the movie cheap? Firstly, you can see that it is a low-budget production. This is really obvious, because the special effects and the fighting scene look totally faked. Secondly, the many parts of that movie don't seem to belong together at all. It's like watching a comedy show on TV consisting of a lot of funny clips. The third thing is that a lot of times the faces of the actors change in different shots. Filmed from the front, the actor is smiling, in the next shot, filmed from the right, he is not anymore. Really bad directing! Of course, they chose B or even C-actors for this production, probably mainly because of the budget, but definitely also because nobody else would participate in such a crap. That means, don't expect too much from the actors, except from Alyson Hannigan. I still can't find a reason why she took this part. She did her ridiculous job perfectly, I suggest she should try a serious movie next. Also Jennifer Coolidge sticks out of the bad ones. I can't see why she agreed to take part in this movie. It also makes fun of "Legally Blonde", a film she had a part in and that was successful.
The whole film is absolutely stupid, only a few teenagers in the back got a kick out of the scenes in the fat-suit at the beginning. The other people in the theater didn't even smile a little. I guess that's the first and last movie the two directors will ever make!
This movie is supposed to make fun of more or less popular romantic comedies. The basic story is a mixture of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", "My best friend's wedding" and "Meet the parents", but there are also parts out of "Bend it like Beckham", "A lot like love", "Harry and Sally", "Bridget Jones", "Hitch", "Notting Hill", "Pretty Woman", "Sweet Home Alabama", "What women want" and "The Wedding Crashers", just to name a few. The problem is that the jokes are not funny. They are either disgusting or stupid, so instead of making the people laugh, it makes them look away nauseated or roll their eyes. I mean, does anybody think beating a homeless guy is funny? Another problem that I had was that I liked the movies that this one is trying to make fun of. So it made me kind of aggravated. I can understand that people parody real bad movies and make a great comedy out of it, but why turning a lot of great movies into one that only the word "cheap" could describe properly?
Why is the movie cheap? Firstly, you can see that it is a low-budget production. This is really obvious, because the special effects and the fighting scene look totally faked. Secondly, the many parts of that movie don't seem to belong together at all. It's like watching a comedy show on TV consisting of a lot of funny clips. The third thing is that a lot of times the faces of the actors change in different shots. Filmed from the front, the actor is smiling, in the next shot, filmed from the right, he is not anymore. Really bad directing! Of course, they chose B or even C-actors for this production, probably mainly because of the budget, but definitely also because nobody else would participate in such a crap. That means, don't expect too much from the actors, except from Alyson Hannigan. I still can't find a reason why she took this part. She did her ridiculous job perfectly, I suggest she should try a serious movie next. Also Jennifer Coolidge sticks out of the bad ones. I can't see why she agreed to take part in this movie. It also makes fun of "Legally Blonde", a film she had a part in and that was successful.
The whole film is absolutely stupid, only a few teenagers in the back got a kick out of the scenes in the fat-suit at the beginning. The other people in the theater didn't even smile a little. I guess that's the first and last movie the two directors will ever make!
Tell Your Friends