Fritz_Gerlich Reviews

Star Trek: Discovery (2017–2024)

Soft, Squishy SciFi

[3/10 · 26 September 2017]

I was hoping for some character based, hard science fiction. This is not that.

The show is glitzy, with millions lavished on cgi. They desperately want you to judge it cool. Dialog is spartan, efficient and easy to digest. They desperately want to make sure nobody is confused. The characters have been honed via writing by committee and focus testing. They desperately want you to not dislike anyone. The plot is basic: two sentence simple. Again, they don't want anyone confused. Humour is absent.

The show mass market confection, and easily forgotten. It is the science fiction equivalent of The Olive Garden.

Jaws (1975)

Boring, Unscientific, & Has Aged Poorly

[2/10 · 31 December 2014]

First, this movie is stupid in so far as it is filled with anti-shark propaganda. You have a much greater chance of being killed by a falling coconut or a dog than a shark. They are not a force of evil created by Satan.

The movie could still have been entertaining however, lots of good movies have idiotic stories. Unfortunately, the characters are dull, the story moves at a snail pace, the serious dialogue laughable, the shark fake looking, and the acting mediocre. Really, the only things worthwhile are the poster and the shark theme.

Tldnr: a boring curio from the 70s that probably helped push the great white further towards extinction.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Perfect Use of CGI

[8/10 · 1 July 2011]

This is not a plot/character driven movie, it is an action movie. So if you aren't particularly fond of action, you'll probably want to skip this one. The plot is incoherent, and the characters paper thin and dull. But the action, oh the action...

My beef with most current action movies is the over-reliance on cgi and the tendency for animators to completely ignore physics. When something looks real on screen and the cgi invisible, it has much more impact for me, and I think for most people. Anyone remember in Blade II when Wesley Snipes has a scene where it alternates between fantastic choreographed fighting and 100% CGIed Wesley and his opponents. The CGI ruined what could have been a great scene by making it laughably cartoonish. By contrast, The Dark Knight was such a good movie in part because Nolan made a conscious decision to use as little cgi as possible, Quantum has the same ethos.

At its core, the action sequences are real, and Craig does most of it himself (you should watch the bonus features to see one particularly bond crunching jump he did off an Italian roof). The real action is then modified by the cgi team to remove things like harnesses, guy wires, scaffolding etc. They do not change the basic action, there are no moments when Bond becomes a comic book hero doing things that no human could do. When he lands, you feel it. It is such a refreshing movie in that way and allows the viewer to enter the world.

So if you are like me, and are tired of cgi excess but still like a good action movie, you should watch this one.

Antichrist (2009)

Potent Examination of Motherhood

[10/10 · 7 March 2011]

Here is a film that will confound some and resonate with others. Which side of the divide you fall on will depend on your childhood. The director is a fearless filmmaker, but in real life he is hobbled by depression and phobias so bad he almost had to give up filmaking. I suspect, but have no way of knowing for sure, that his childhood was disastrous and his mother evil/crazy. As such, I see this film as a statement feminine evil, and in particular the feminine evil of pernicious mothering. Mothering in its pure and good form, involves unconditional love and supportive nurturing and in a perfect world, all mothers would be that way. The reality of course is that not all children are so lucky. Some are betrayed by the very person that holds their life in her hand. Some mothers are evil to varying degrees. My reading of the film is that She (the female lead is never named) is an evil mother symbol and He is the child symbol. The torture inflicted on He is pretty clear. A millstone is bolted onto his leg, and his manhood is crushed. This can be read as the legacy of evil mothering on some adult male survivors in the most blunt of terms. The director does not deal with female children because this is his story and he is a man; nobody should read into the story misogyny. I could continue, but I mostly just wanted to bring up these ideas so people could have a better footing on which to understand the movie as a personal statement of the director. Of course, as with all true art, ymmv.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

B*o*R*i*N*g B*o*R*i*N*g B*o*R*i*N*g B*o*R*i*N*g

[1/10 · 14 December 2009]

In short, the movie is 90 minutes of painfully boring build up with no pay off. When it started I was thinking, OK this is how a good horror movie starts: slow, boring, and normal. Then stuff is supposed to happen. The problem with this movie is nothing ever happens. The characters talk, and bitch, and moan, and groan, and knit, and read, and bead, and watch TV, and sleep, and walk, etc etc. Occasionally, a door will move on its own, or a blanket will blow, or the woman will sleep walk...ooooo scary stuff. It's like watching a film of a normal person's life: deadly dull. Which would have been fine is something happened near the end.

Trust me, if you watch this movie, it will end and you will think 'well that was disappointing'.

I suppose if I had liked the characters, and found their conversations amusing or interesting in some way, the movie may have been worth my time. The characters are completely unlikeable though, and very boring. The man is an a-hat, and very dumb, and thinks way too much of himself. The woman is completely humourless, acts stunned most of the time, and spews inane dialogue. She lets him use her back door though, so I guess shes not all bad.

Oh, and the production values are abysmal. If you have any problems with shaky cameras, stay far away from this movie. It made my wife sick and gave me a headache. She actually stopped watching half way through, but I kept thinking something cool/scary is about to happen. There were virtually no special effects, unless you think having a door move by itself is special.

I am also thinking that these 8/91/10 out of 10 reviews have all been astroturfted, and it makes me reconsider using IMDb as a guide for movie reviews.

The Invention of Lying (2009)

Hollywood Gervais Makes Boring Predictable RomCom

[1/10 · 10 October 2009]

Gervais' The Office was fantastic because it was different. And so I was hoping that this movie too would provide some interesting and creative storytelling. I also thought that this was a great premise for a movie. Unfortunately, like many movies with promising premises, it becomes a simple by the numbers bore-fest. I won't bother with a plot summary, but I will say that the number of interesting or surprising elements is zero. I might as well have watched the latest Sandra Bullock movie.

I guess it's not too surprising. American financed movies almost always have uber-predictable plots. The movie could have been redeemed though, if it was funny. But it wasn't, there was very little audience reaction in the screening I was at.

All in all, a waste of time and money.

Star Trek (2009)

The day star trek died

[1/10 · 29 May 2009]

First, the rating relates to what's new in the star trek movie. The characters and elements taken from the original series are fantastic and iconic, but the rest of the movie is a mess and a betrayal of star trek's loyal fans.

There are sooooo many plot holes, that this thing is just a joke. I don't know how anyone can enjoy this movie without a lobotomy or a Kentucky public school education. I won't list them as I want to avoid spoilers, but suffice it to say that this movie has as much science in it as Kansas evolutionary biology class. And the movie is bursting at the seams with Phlebotinum (do a google if you don't know what it is).

Basically, they've taken the cool characters from the original star trek, changed them sufficiently so as to render them annoying, and put them in a weak derivative predictable story.

One thing they have done is made it possible to have new star trek adventures with kinda the same characters as the original series. But to accomplish this, they pretty much destroyed the last 40 years of trek mythology.

if this movie is any indication of what's coming down the pipe, it's just going to be another lame cashing in like return of the jedi and the 3 prequels were. This is most likely the last star trek movie i will ever see, just as phantom menace was the last star wars related thing I saw when I jumped that sci-fi ship.

Superbad (2007)

Best Enjoyed if You Are A 13-25 Year Old Male

[10 April 2009]

The characters are pretty much obsessed with their genitalia and bodily functions. They talk like junior high school students raised on south park and Internet porn. There are some funny bits though, so it partially succeeds as a comedy. But this is best enjoyed by 13-25 year old males.

The star, Micheal Cera, does a great job of creating a likable character. He plays the awkward nerdy kid perfectly. His obnoxious foil was played with great verve by Jonah Hill (at least I think thats the actors name). Seth Rogen plays the same character he plays in everything since Freaks and Geeks.

Fired Up! (2009)

A Movie Dependent on Expectations

[2/10 · 28 February 2009]

It seems the positive reviews are based on the fact that the reviewers were going in expecting the absolute worst. And because they didn't get the absolute worst, they are willing to give the movie a decent 5+ rating. Well, I'm not so easy. Sure the screening was free, and I expected a dreadful movie, but just because it is one notch above dreadful doesn't mean I'm giving it a 5+ rating. I'm giving it the rating I would have given it had I chose to go see and paid the $10 and given over 90 minutes of my life.

There isn't much positive to say about this movie, but what little there is I'll say first. There are a few smiles in the movie, but if you've seen the trailer you've seen 80% of them. There are some pop culture references that are mildly amusing as well, and a few moments where the movie makes fun of itself. But these moments are few and far between. Now for the bad.

The plot is beyond predictable. There is no surprises or interest or suspense. The casting is creepy/bad. When you have a 31 year old actor making moves on a 16 year old, it is disquieting. Generally the quality of acting is passable, but given the source material it is impossible to say whether these people have any real talent or not. The look of the film is low budget, and editing hurried. I don't think anyone took any pride in making this one, it's prolly a movie people did for the paycheck and the paycheck alone. The dialog 99% of the time is bad. The marketing people keep trying to tie this one to the wedding crashers, but don't be fooled. The two leads in the Wedding crashers were from a different and markedly superior comedic gene pool. And the scripts are much different in quality. Not that the Wedding Crashers was genius, but it was decent. The final thing that bugged me was the makers cutting the film for a PG-13 rating. I guess their hoping that young people will make this profitable. American Pie worked because they went for the R rating and could be edgy and push things. PG-13 means that anything except the mildest of sexual innuendo is verboten. Boring and sanitized.

So, if you're really keen on this movie, wait for the DVD. That way it'll cost less and you can fast forward. It's really not worth $10 and 90 minutes.

Coraline (2009)

The Anti Wall-e

[1/10 · 22 February 2009]

First, the look of the movie is gorgeous. I love the use of animitronic puppets and real sets supplemented by cgi. It gives the movie a wonderful magical physics.

But, oh lord, the sorry sorry story. You remember in wall-e when you first met the character there was an instant emotional connection? You became emotionally invested in the movie and the thought of Wall-e dying was genuinely upsetting? And how in Wall-e, the story had twists and turns and kept you interested? Well, Coraline has none of that.

All of the main characters were uninteresting soul-less unsympathetic cutouts. The even managed to make the talking cat an unlikeable bore. The story has zero suspense or surprises, you pretty much know what is going to happen ten minutes into this thing. In short, it is an emotionally vacant, soul-less movie with a paint by numbers story line that looks good.

So if you liked Wall-e because the story was clever and you cared about the characters and not just because of the great looking computer animation; chances are good you'll hate this movie because all its got is its looks.

Inkheart (2008)

If You Liked the Harry Potter Books, Read the Inkworld Series

[4/10 · 2 February 2009]

I was really excited about the release of this movie as I think the Inkheart books are some of the best YA fiction around. The books are dark and suspenseful and filled with twists and surprises. The books are not funny or light hearted; children are killed, men die, women lament, and evil is very very threatening and scary. The characters likewise are complex (for YA literature) and provide much in the way complex behaviour. And you can't guess the ending unless you're really clever (which I, sadly, am not). I couldn't stop reading these books and finished them off in a week.

OK, that's the books, what about the movie. Well the movie is light-hearted, the villains goofy, and the suspense completely lacking. The people I saw the movie with knew what kind of ending they were in for from the first 10 minutes of the movie. There was none of the fear and dread and darkness of the books. The movie was a lukewarm puffball, and the ratings on IMDb show that nobody was taken with the movie. 6.? is really bad for a movie here. And it's not surprising. What is there to be enthused about in the movie except for the cast and the locations, both of which are fantastic. The story is a limp noodle that offers no emotional involvement or suspense. It's just another kid's movie with no heart or faith in the audience.

It should be noted that the first Inkheart book is by far the weakest in the trilogy and after I finished it I was on the fence as to whether I was going to finish the series. But I had bought the set and so I started book number 2. And that's when things get really good and inventive. So it's really disappointing that Inkworld and Inkdeath are never going to get a cinematic treatment, but at least we have the books. And really, after watching this movie, maybe it's a good thing because if they did the 'goofy lighthearted predictable' thing on books number 2 and 3, I would have been really disappointed.

I would only recommend this movie to people that have read the series and are interested in seeing what Hollywood did with the source material. I would not recommend this movie to anyone looking to get a memorable cinematic experience. I pretty much guarantee that most people will have forgotten this movie by the following morning, it is that inconsequential.

So in summary, avoid the movie and if you liked the Harry Potter books, give the Inkheart books a whirl.

CJ7 (2008)

A Very Frightening Insight into Chinese Culture

[1/10 · 19 December 2008]

If this movie provides any insight into the Chinese psyche, I'm worried. First off this is a kids movie with a cute little alien creature that a boy befriends. EXCEPT the boy doesn't befriend him. He tries use him at first to get stuff, like good grades, and when the alien fails the alien is tortured, beaten, and thrown in the trash. For some reason, the alien returns to the boys home where he is further beaten and hit and thrown around. The alien decides to stay again. I am going to reveal the ending...The movie ends with the father being killed at an accident at work and the cute fuzzy alien thing sacrificing himself to resurrect the father. The only sense of the story I can make is that the creature was so despondent at being left in such a cruel miserable country he decided to kill himself by resurrecting the father. He resurrected the father because he wanted to punish him for being such a jerk by making him live longer at his sucky life as a poverty stricken coolie.

And don't worry, the boy gets beaten too. Great kids movie. Want to know why China is one of the worst offenders when it comes to animal cruelty? Here's one reason why.

Now I am no huge fan of Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks, but at least the messages in their movies have a beautiful sentiment behind them. You know, friendship is important, love is important, etc etc. The message in this movie seems to be you can treat non-human living beings as horrible as you want, use them, dispose of them, and you will still be their master. If this is what passes for children's entertainment in China, then that is one messed up country.

I should also mention, this movie is painfully unfunny. Most American kids movies have a lot of clever things to keep adults entertained along with the young ones. Like, for example, the use of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song in Shriek III. There is none of that in this movie. It is extremely dumbed down. But it won't work for kids either, as it can be upsetting to sensitive children.

So, unless you are interested in a sociological examination of what constitutes a kid's movie from China, stay far away from this one. Shaolin Soccer isn't too bad though. I don't know where all the positive reviews came from either. I think it must be astroturfing by people who work for the studio.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)

Boring

[3/10 · 25 May 2008]

With this kind of movie you know the ending before going to see it so there is no tension or suspense there. The fun with these kinds of movies is in the interesting characters, funny dialog, cool cgi action sequences, and story that that is interesting. The characters here are completely one dimensional played woodenly by the actors. They are horribly dull. The dialog is virtually without except for the sword-fighting mouse, but that character was just a rip off of the cat from shriek 3. The cgi is pedestrian, the creatures are dull and unimaginative. The action sequences are also boring and overlong. And the producers have basically gutted the Lewis books, and substituted their own story, which is silly even for a cartoony kids movie and not at all interesting.

Anyway, at 224 minutes, this film is bloated boring and unfunny. It's not anything like the first one.

Speed Racer (2008)

Overloaded Overstimulating Oversaturated Overboard and You've GOT to See it On the Big Screen

[9/10 · 14 May 2008]

This is the most intense movie I have ever seen. It's not intense because the story is a high power drama full of tension, but intense because it takes the elements of cgi action movies and turns the knob to 11. Everything is taken to the extreme: the colors, the sounds, the action, everything. This movie is an adrenaline rush of epic proportions and its a shame the reviews just couldn't handle it. Maybe they're too old, I don't know. But then again I'm in my thirties, so I'm no youngster. Hell, I remember a time before the internet. But seriously, you really should go see this movie as it is a unique experience that you probably won't forget. And this is doublely true if you live near an IMAX theater, which is where I saw this movie. The giant screen and killer sound-system just made this movie so overwhelming, it was almost too much. The only downside to seeing this movie, is when you leave the theater the real world will seem so drab and gray by comparison. No joke, but I thought it was foggy outside when I left the theater (it wasn't).

Again, don't miss this event as it really has to be seen on the big screen to be appreciated

Death Proof (2007)

An Homage that that turns out to be a w4nk job

[2/10 · 29 April 2008]

This movie is supposed to be an homage to the car chase movies of the 60's and 70's, but it forgets it's source material and becomes an ego exercise. The first problem is the dialog, which banal and stupid. You know, in Pulp Fictions how all the dialog was crafted with nano-precision and filled with humour and coolness? Well, this is the exact opposite. The characters are boring 1 dimensional dullards that are completely unlikeable, hell I was rooting for the villain. The story is garbage and paper thin. So I'm watching this movie debating whether to cut my losses and turn it off, 'but', i tell myself 'the action sequences are coming up, that'd make all this dreck worth while.' Oh how wrong I was. The scenes were pedestrian and utterly predictable. So at the end of this movie what are you left with: no story, no characters, no good action...in short nothing. What a w4nk job.

Moving McAllister (2007)

I Know Exactly Why This Movie Was Made

[2/10 · 22 March 2008]

This movie was made because the concept translates well into a two sentence summary that can be used to lure investors. That is, the premise is interesting and sellable. I mean, I rented it based on the synopsis. The problem is there is nothing beyond the initial concept. There is no coherent plot, no fully fledged characters, no real comedy, no interesting scenery, no surprises, and no good performances (except Jon Herder, he does something with very little). It's as if the people who green lit this thing never read the script but only the synopsis. And if there were enough people like me, it may even have made money.

To the prospective viewer: don't waste your time, there is nothing funny or interesting to see here. To the creators of the film: hey, you got your film made, so what if its not that great. Most people never get to see themselves or their work up on screen.

1408 (2007)

Boring boring movie

[2/10 · 24 June 2007]

There was nothing of interest here. No creep factor, no fear, no horror. Just some stream of consciousness happenings in a room. People were heard to be muttering 'worst movie I've seen' & 'that sucked' as we were walking out. During the movie, some were fiddling with cell phones and having conversations unrelated to the movie. I'd didn't blame them, because the movie doesn't hold one's attention. I guess on the up side, the acting was decent enough. And the little girl had the biggest cutest eyes.

It's like a lot of king based films, good premise but horrible execution.

Seriously, this was a really dull movie.

13 Tzameti (2005)

Bad Bad Bad Film

[2/10 · 8 April 2007]

Why is this movie a dud?

-bad acting: Aside from some moody brooding, none of the players can emote. Some of the notable performances: the heroin addict, who comes off as a cranky Hugh Hefner in need of some shampoo; his wife, whose emotional repertoire begins and ends with 'annoyed'; the lead, who sleepwalks through the film, whose only depth comes from the addition of sweat stains on his tee shirt, the dumb cop, who delivers his lines like someone reading off of cue cards behind the camera (& why did he park his vw bug literally right in front of the main entrance to the house he is watching, come on, where is the 'AAA Plumbing' stake-out van?)...there's a lot more but I don't want this review to be a spoiler. The one bright spot is the ringer for David Lynch with his wacky hair.

-bad story: the story is utterly laughable. I don't mind implausibility or the occasional plot hole, but this stinker is just over the top. None of the characters has any kind motivation, and the basic premise just dose not work.

-bad direction-There is nothing interesting or worthwhile in the ham-fisted way this film was shot. It looks rushed and low-budget, and maybe it was.

I am not sure why there are so many positive comments. I suppose if a film is in black and white and comes from France, some people think it HAS to be artistic. This film just goes to show that the french film industry makes crap just like the American one.

I see Brad Pitt's company has bought the rights to this thing. It will be kind of interesting to see how H-wood handles this story.

cheers.

Hendrix (2000 TV Movie)

It's all about the money

[2/10 · 27 March 2007]

What happens when a production team has no money? They make something like 'hendrix'.

There is no quality in this movie, its a cheap knockoff designed to get viewers merely because 'hendrix' is in the titled. It's a pretty good example of bait and switch. And the greatest travesty is the lack of hendrix material in the movie, anything requiring additional royalties was off limits. So you get cheap imitations of hendrix songs, oh but none that he actually wrote, just the covers. A hendrix movie without 'purple haze', 'foxy lady', 'all along the watchtower', ...', etc.

The only saving grace is the lead. He does a great job in capturing the sound and mannerisms of hendrix, right down to that nervous laugh. It's too bad he is acting in a pool of low-cost sh1t.

Waco: A New Revelation (2000)

A Great companion piece to 'rules of engagement'

[9/10 · 1 January 2007]

I agree with the the above, in that this should be a companion piece to Waco: Rules of Engagement. That movie was almost unbelievable, and still gives me nightmares. Some of those pictures still make me tear-up. But this one fills in the gaps a bit more, and also talks about Vince Foster who may have killed himself over the deaths. He was the white house liaison to the whole Waco fiasco, and one of his last notes that wasn't seized and shoved in some 'national security' hole, states that the FBI 'lied to me.' I really don't know how the other people can live with themselves, it's almost ;o| enough to make me think we are ruled by reptilian aliens.

Seven Wonders of the Industrial World (2003)

All true but...

[9/10 · 3 November 2006]

... but some episodes in the series also highlight the relationship between workers and bosses. As is still the case in unregulated environments, workers are nothing more than grist and they are of no more value than the bags of cement or rows of machinery. This can lead to horrific results and great resentment.

Yes, these are all great accomplishments, but these are not all great men. For what kind of person send others to death without conscience?

Viva la Revolucion! ;)

Apparently I need ten lines of text before I can submit my comment. So here are the extra lines.

Dirty Deeds (2005)

Room Still Stinks from the Effluvia Emmited from this Turd

[1/10 · 15 July 2006]

The reviewers giving this movie decent or sublime reviews should be ashamed. They are trying to manipulate people. I usually only see that kind of garbage on download.com, but I guess marketing hacks are everywhere...

Watching this reminded me of rubber-necking at the seen of a car accident. Its sad and tragic to behold and you feel really bad for the people involved, but its hard to look away.

It's obvious this movie was sold and funded without anyone actually having read the script, if it even exists at the time. "Its porky's meets Amercian Pie meets Ferris Beuller...yeah that sounds sell-able, cut the check." The script is REALLY REALLY bad. It seems like the 'writers' weren't even trying. Giant plot holes, characters with zero humanity/depth, a complete lack humor, nothing novel/interesting, and perpetually cringe inducing dialog. They cant even get the clichéd character archetypes right.

Then there is the casting. I hate watching 30-somethings pretending to be teens (they don't 'act' like teens because these corpses cant act). Although, watching the lead struggle with his Bell's palsy (drooping mouth on one side of the face) is interesting. And speaking of droopy, there is 8 seconds of tit-tie shots in this movie.

The photography is just nasty. Ugly locations, p*ss-poor lighting, bad framing, inconsistent color palette, etc etc. The DoP should really hope no one notices his name or watches this on HD.

There are a couple of highlights on the DVD though. In the bonus features you get to see the actors lying through their teeth about how much they loved this project and you get to see Charles Durning explain why he took the role. "Why did I choose this role? Well, when I was younger I remember asking Henry Fonda how he chose his roles. He said 'I take whatever is offered and I don't ask questions'. Thats what I do." Hey, at least he is honest.

Anyway, the people who made this film should be unemployed. There are so many talented people and great projects desperately searching for funding its a travesty that this thing was give million(s) and found shelf space at my DVD shop.