Reviews

The concept of Resident Evil does not sound like something that should be too difficult to make a decent, enjoyable movie out of. The original games (and by those, I mean anything mainline before RE4) are not really known for their story, but for great thrills, spooky suspense, bloody, uneasy atmosphere and horror.

The logical step for a movie based on it would be to keep it very light on exposition and story details and focus on suspensful situations and scenarios instead; however, this movie (and also all the previous ones) does the exact opposite and is even so insitent on it that it even takes content from the first two games, the second of which even has two main campaigns.

I suppose they were not confident in their talent to come up with suspense, so they had to fill the runtime with convoluted story queues and references from the games. They tried with a couple of slower scenes topped off with jumpscares, but those were all flat, cheap, and just poorly executed. Nothing that would pull anyone in. It would have required someone with a much stronger vision and sense for suspense.

To the movies credit, it does try to be very faithful to the games in some areas. Particularly the environments looked very accurate to how they looked in the games. But even that felt cheap at times. A lot of it looks and feels fake and is quite obvious CGI (the police main hall with the big statue being one of the main offenders). Included is also a bossfight from the game - even if it was executed poorly again, they at least tried. They obviously did their homework and played the games and used plenty of references, even if a bit too much, but it is the execution that severely lacks here. It is used to no proper effect or excitement.

Speaking of CGI, it is distractingly bad, particularly the explosions and gun fire will stick out in how unauthentic they look.

They were, however, not faithful with the characters, both with the casting and with the writing. Wesker got it worst, followed by Leon and Jill. If you're a fan of the games, you will be annoyed with what those characters have become and how they feel nothing like the ones from the game. They behave often unnaturally and are not believable, with Chief Irons being easily the worst, and Claire is also very dull.

Even the zombies look off and are just annoying.

There is some horrible use of licensed late 90s music in this movie, that I feel the need to mention it as it is just perplexingly awful. The scene where Jennifers Page's "Crush" was used, stood out as it was remarkably out of place and plain dumb. What were they even thinking with this one?

The overall feel of this movie is somewhere in between a Boll movie and cheap fanfiction.

Concepts of movies like "Cube", "The Raid" and "Dawn of the Dead" (obviously) would be a great inspiration for a Resident Evil movie. They perfectly showcase that less is more and where the focus should be.

Ironically, there were big names attached to RE movies in the past that would have been a much better fit, such as George A. Romero and James Wan. But Constantin Film yet again came through with its poor decisionmaking and incompetence. As long as they and Paul W. S. Anderson (who is an executive producer here) are involved, there is little hope we will ever see a movie that does the franchise justice.

The decision to hand such a big name as Resident Evil to someone like Johannes Roberts, who, judging by his imdb movie list, has only directed poorly rated movies, is quite baffling, and the quality of the resulting movie is no surprise.

Regardless how you look at it, no matter which angle you take and how metta you are willing to get, this movie is pointless and plain boring. Productionwise, this is the polar opposite of the first Matrix movie and it is astonishing that the same director (well, partially at least) would be responsible for each... If that was the goal, then well, mission accomplished, but at what price? It's truly baffling how low can one go and how stark the contrast in effort and care between each movie is.

It is so fundamentally clueless on what it wants to do, underdeveloped in what it wants to express and is utterly disinterested to entertain the audience.

In a way it, its a testament on how confused, out of ideas and irrational the Hollywood movie industry has become. The movie truly is a product of its time where creativity and freedom of expression takes a dive for "risk free" business decisions and virtue signaling. And even if this was the whole point of it, to make such a statement, there are plenty of other trashy expensive movies which do a much better job to convey it. Its not even good for that.

After the overburdened messy trainwreck that was Batman V Superman, I had much doubt for this one... At the first look there again are a ton of characters and again a weird choice of changes to an iconic arch enemy (you don't wanna think of Lil Wayne when you see the Joker, okay?). Overall it seemed like its going to repeat the same mistakes as BvS. And to an extend it did. However the main difference is that this one actually manages to provide fun.

As critics seem to be exceptionally harsh with this one, I believe that much of it depends on what your expectations are. If you think of this anything more than easy entertainment popcorn-movie action, you'll gonna be disappointed. Otherwise you're in for a fun ride, even though it has a few bumps here and there.

Part of the reason it is entertaining to me is how stylishly it was filmed. The movie starts off almost like a montage of MTV music videos with plenty of licensed music; I'd say they even went overboard with the music. Whether you like the music or not is a matter of personal taste - personally I didn't find it all that fitting and was a little bit annoyed when they played Eminems "Without me". But it is undeniable that these scenes have a certain "coolness" to them.

There is a lot of action going on, however the plot is paper-thin. It basically can be summarized in one sentence, and it's the most predictable one for most common comicbooks or action-movies. But what made me not care about that is the already mentioned stylishness that indeed provided the most fun. The way Batman was utilized, even tough in a really small portion, was effective. I loved his biggest scene, which I won't spoil here even though it is in the trailer. What's also great are the many shootout scenes and gunplay. Kinda reminded me of the 90's action movies, which is always a good thing. Even the PG13 didn't spoil it.

As far as for the characters... They mostly are good and satisfying. Lets start with the iconic one first:

Joker - as I mentioned, not really happy how they changed him. Lacks the sarcastic menace and intensity. Far from bad, but they could've been more imaginative and let him go all out more. His henchmen were awesome though.

Harley - Pretty good actually, from the trailer it seemed like she'd be mostly about making faces and grimaces and be an annoyance, but she was fine and a pretty good movie adaptation of the character. Lots of here humorous scenes were really weak though... that was some truly lazy writing.

Deadshot - this one is a bit of a polarizing one. The character definitely got the Will Smith treatment, and it's hard to separate him from other action characters Will played. Even though I love his action scenes and his gunslinging is truly badass, he seems more like a good guy than a bad guy. It is tough to escape the feeling that it is indeed because of Will. Would've been interesting to seem him play someone purely evil for a change.

The others didn't get much screen time, but to me they were satisfying. Katana, Croc added to the action. Boomerang to the comic relieve (was actually pulled of well without overdoing it, kudos for that), Enchantress was really nice to look at, provided plenty of awesome imagery, El Diablo also had a great action scene and added a little bit of dept. Slipknot was the one with the least screen-time, basically a filler but his entrance was entertaining no less.

All in all entertaining, carefree action-fun. Don't expect anything deep from it. It's mostly the action and spectacle parts that deliver, and they are pulled off well. There are some emotions thrown in, nothing great or new, just here to mix-up things a little. Surprisingly the humor is really weak, but it's tolerable. Better than BvS in any case.

Before the critics even started to shred this movie apart there were very good initial reaction from people who saw early screenings. "Good movie...", "5 times better than Man of Steel", "Best Superhero movie of all time", "Poetry" they said... fair enough I assumed, perhaps my early skepticism was wrong and it truly managed to escape all the traps that come with such huge undertakings.

BvS repeats, for what seems like the millionth time, the very same mistake that so many other not-so-good superhero flicks already have proved to be a bad idea it makes you wonder if the studio executive just can't take a hint or blatantly don't care while they can make a quick buck.

Mess sounds about damn right. It borrows from so many story-lines, mixes everything through the gutter, is overburdened with a ton of characters it probably sets new record in that regard. It's like Batman & Robin, Spider-Man 3 and X-men Last Stand combined.

But it's not all bad. On to the good: The movie is actually well acted - I honestly felt everybody did a good job. Some characters were bad but none of it was the actors fault. In particular Luthor, Superman, Clark Kent were, in order, completely out of place, a one track record and desperately lacking presence. The action is awesome and intense. Batman gets the most out of it, comes off as the complete bad-ass when he is kicking ass. CGI is pretty good. And that's about it.

Everything else is lacking. The story is convoluted. Plenty of scenes just plainly thrown in for no rhyme or reason, just don't make a god-damn sense. The script jumps randomly around like a madman in a padded cell. Even Zack Snyders trademark of strong visuals fails. These artsy scenes are weird, drawn out and unintentionally funny it literally invited people in the cinema to give their "clever" remarks to the rest of the viewers or laugh. It created a awkward and weird atmosphere. And that it so stubbornly insist on being so dead-serious and free of any self-awareness all the time surely didn't do it any favor, it almost goes full circle that it seems almost like a parody.

The Justice League deserves way better. Snyder proved with Watchmen that he can manage a mammoth project. Sadly not this time. It just tries to bite way, way more than it actually can chew. It would've helped if most of the characters were already established with their own franchise movies.

Don't bother with BvS, it truly is one heck of a mess.

The Good Dinosaur is definitely an odd-ball among Pixar movies. What makes it stick out like a sore thumb is that it actually dares to drastically step away for your typical Disney/Pixar "happily ever after" formula. Especially for Disney which kinda are known for favouring feel-good cliché stories over harsh morals.

This film goes for the later however in quite a few of its attempts, it falls flat because in some instances the makers did not understand how to go about it, which for a studio this big is baffling. I'm all for a kids movie dealing with death, mortality, morals and teaching them that nothing in life is granted - it's only natural. However, even when it isn't trying to teach things and is purely goofing around, there are always crass scenes like for example an giant bugs head being ripped off (while alive no less) which truly make my forehead wrinkle thinking "what the fudge were they thinking!?" Those scenes are frustrating and unnecessary it's almost overwhelming, and it's unfortunate, because it really makes all the good moments easy to forget and ignore. And there are fairly enough of them too. What to me started as a pretty bad movie, progressively got better toward the end, but it definitely required some tolerance along the way. And in the end it came of a solid film, but still I can see why parents won't be pleased with this one.

Technically there is little doubt that this is state of the art. While the characters themselves seem pretty basic, the world around them is anything but. There is so much detail, various materials and elements (like water, earth...) behaving with incredible realism. Best landscapes too. They have set the bar higher with this one.

Doing rough and harsh life lessons in movies aimed at younger audiences can be done right as some in the past have proved, but it's obviously not an easy thing to do and requires much finesse. "The Good Dinosaur" struggles in that regard and sometimes handles thing badly and inappropriate. Still there is also a fair amount of moments where it shines and manages to get the message across, and it shouldn't be judged sorely on the negatives. All said it's a decent one. It may or may not be Pixars worst, but it still isn't bad.

This is one though movie to rate. Well, perhaps I shall start by saying that walking out out the theater, I found myself well entertained and I enjoyed the two or so hours spent so my impression is a positive one, but there were a couple of things that were also bothering me about "The Force awakens". Thinking about it a bit more, the movie, ultimately, feels unnecessary to the whole saga, but that is perhaps because it's more of an introduction to the new trilogy itself. Regardless of that, the movie plays things far too safe and is, as you surely already have heard or read, a rehash of "Star Wars" for the most part. There are so many parallels that I've keep wondering how the makers decided to run with it without the feeling of cheating preventing them to do so. It suffers from the opposite problems of the prequels, as weirdly as it may sound.

It does provide plenty of fun however. When you hear the evil, robotic voice mentioning the dark side of the force, the characteristic laser-guns blasting around or see the old cast and props it's hard not to feel nostalgic. It gives the movie the charm that the prequels were sorely lacking, however it all feels too "borrowed" and not earned in it's own right.

From a pure technical aspect, it is exceptionally well done. The dialog, acting, the scenery and visuals are all great and feel in-tune with the original trilogy. They nailed the look. There is plenty of CGI, but it has more of a organic feel to it and it's not so in-your-face. There is some nice humor too which is refreshing since the prequel trilogy was desperately lacking in that regard. And considering how many characters and story-lines it had to balance out, it managed to do extraordinary well considering it's run-time.

So yeah, I quite liked it and found it to be entertaining - which, in the end is what matters most, but it is undeniable that it doesn't do anything new or different enough. I don't think fans wanted a step for step remake when they were disappointed with the prequel trilogy, but I do think that it needs episodes 8 and 9 to be fully evaluated. I won't rate it until then.

Sinister 2 isn't as bad as some make it out to be. It's not a good movie either. Like most sequels, it struggles with the novelty gone and never manages to succeed in new ways or areas. It is a mediocre and forgettable film, just as the name of it's main character.

I very much enjoyed the first movie. While it's not without its faults - I actually don't think it was that scary with too heavy reliance and textbook-use of "creepy" sounds and the children were too cliché for my taste; it was a very absorbing movie, well directed with excellent music, a good sense for mystery, mood, pace, a solid twist and awesome ending. It cleverly managed to outbalance it's shortcomings.

Sinister 2 starts off promising enough - at first it looks and feels just as it is supposed to, the snuff-flicks are still here with their grainy look and new, obscure kills complimented by creepy music. We find out what has happened after the first movie and continue the investigations surrounding the murder cases involving mysterious events, now with a new family (with twins - which could've provided an interesting twist to the story) and more involvement of the deputy from the prequel which at this point pretty much has inherited the knowledge of the previous main character. Everything you could possibly want in a sequel to Sinister is here, but sadly it is meaningless as they never manage to do something as interesting or memorable with it.

The death-flicks are useless this time as they don't provide anything to resolve the puzzle or any kind of new information. Even worse: the pace of them is pretty much straight to the point giving them a very rushed, uninspired and uninvolved feeling - not enough build-up and no intensity. As opposed to some in the first movie, none of them made me wonder or left me amazed how they were filmed. Instead some of them involve CGI rats and crocodiles - don't even ask. Even the characters argue to watch them all through in one sitting almost as if just to be done with.

The movie also suffers from too much exposition provided by the ghost children. The family, the deputy and Bughuul I found to be decent, but also problematic. While the deputy continues to be the same, likable character, you'll never fear for him because he seems to be too safe from all of it. The character of the mother is another one we should fear for, but oddly enough she is almost entirely absent in any of the horror events; her struggle is only on the family-issue side which doesn't quite sit right with this kind of movie and is more or less a subplot which lacks emotional depth, partially due to the father being so over the top. There is just overall little sense of danger in this movie which is its biggest fault.

To it's credit it does try to provide new things while being true to the first movie. It has it's moments where it shows potential and ideas, but never quite manages to expand on it in suspenseful and creative ways. It does however bother to explain some things surrounding the history and what if's, just about in the right amount without ruining too much, which is always nice. It also has its fair share of plot holes and faulty logic, just like the previous one did (some are even still the same), but I found it to be forgivable as it's not something I should be too concerned about with a movie involving supernatural events.

It's not exactly trash. I wasn't really bored watching it, but it also didn't provide enough suspense either, which is something it definitely should have. With a third Sinister movie seemingly sure to be made it'll be interesting to see where he series is being headed and if it'll reach cult status as any other popular horror franchise. The first one has potential to become a classic, this one is a much weaker entry which makes me wonder how they will handle the next one. Sinister 2 had potential and could have used more polish in almost every aspect. Hopefully the makers will learn from it and allow them more time to come up with good material.

Terminator 3, what can I say... It's probably one of the most difficult movies to have humble expectations first time around after seeing the previous movies of the franchise. How can you not expect it to be great as the prequels were - this is The Terminator we're talking about, right? Right?

Ever since seeing Terminator 2 I always wondered if there would be another entry. How would they follow it up and possibly top them? As time passed there were various rumors here and there, but never anything concrete for a long time. James Cameron was involved, then he was not and so on and so forth. There were comics that I found to be quite interesting and served as tie-ins to both T1 and T2, in which you would for example see where the T1000 got his look from and what happened in the future war with its own twists and turns of events. I found it to be solid material that could be used for reference when making a third movie. After all, the future where the war with Skynet is happening and both Kyle Reese and the terminators are send back in time is the least covered part in the previous movies, and at one point did happen either way, wherever it was avoided in T2 or not. So to me it was the only logical way a third one would've been made, if at all, and it sort of would be both a prequel and sequel.

Then, after a too long time when the hype kinda laid down, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines came along, and right of the bat it looked like they didn't have any new ideas. Even from the trailer I could tell that they were playing it safe and pretty much rehashed the second one. Watching the movie for the fist time was like playing the waiting game, when would something wow me? We're still stuck with the same, old characters that are supposed to be humanity saviors only this time completely without any notable development towards it. And when the end-credits rolled I was left unimpressed and thought to myself "well, that's just a so much weaker version of T2". It didn't do anything new, at all. At that time I couldn't even point out a single thing that stood out to me. It was just one giant "meh".

Thrill and fear - completely gone. Creativity - huh, what!? Character development, emotions, purpose - not much here. Moving and powerful music - absent. Fear inducing and horrifying villain - nope, you just get this sort of T1000 with T800 parts and gimmicks tacked on that's here just for the action. No message, no meaningful conflict, no nightmares, no deeper meaning, nada, niente.

Instead of everything mentioned you get: good action with some notable scenes and enough oomph. Campy humor that is often too much on the nose and more than once feels like a spoof of the second movie, almost reaching Scary Movie-like levels in some scenes. And a overabundance of the same one-liners now with slight variations. Seriously, people loved them in T2, but that wasn't by far the main thing. It was rather the cherry on top and way better implemented in small amounts and way more natural. Here it seemed that everything happening is for the purpose of forcing as much as possible of them down your throat and blowing sh*t up for the sake of blowing sh*t up. It's like they misunderstood or didn't bother to understand the appeal of the Terminator movies and just went with the f-yeah action.

But after watching it a few more times I came to appreciate it for what it is. Had it been completely unrelated to the Terminator saga it would be much easier to enjoy it and pass it as a decent popcorn action flick. The main problems are the truly giant steps it has to fill in and the pressure while making it must've been immense. Jonathan Mostov actually does a fairly competent, sans the humorous parts, job and at certain times it does feel slightly like a Terminator movie. Its the writing that is just so incredibly lazy. Maybe it was indeed the smarter move in playing it safe as the perfection the previous movies achieved is truly something that does happen very rarely, so it may have underwhelm either way. It's not a bad movie, but it just tremendously pales in comparison and is hindered by having to live up to two of the greatest movies of all time. The ending is solid and a good way to lead into the dark future - it fits surprisingly well into the whole saga, however anything before that was, sadly, completely unnecessary and spread thin to the movies run time.

Justice League: Gods and Monsters is a much welcomed return to the quality standard DC Animated established that was a bit lacking in the last few entries since Justice League War, Son of Batman and others. What makes it even more special is that it isn't based on any material but is a new, original take on the Justice League.

If you haven't seen the free-to-watch shorts, know that the almost all characters have little to none in common with their original, classic counterparts and only share the same handles and loosely the same function within the league. Superman is now the son of Zodd, Batman has no problems killing villains by sucking their blood Dracula-style and Wonder Woman has a completely different background. New faces, new abilities, new origins and relations etc. Considering how much was already done in Batman TAS, Superman TAS, Batman Beyond and Justice League, it's really refreshing to see Bruce Timm back doing new things while still maintaining the similar feel and quality the classic Justice League series are known for. While it's not quite on par with the best episodes of the Diniverse/Timmverse, it's definitely up there with the good ones.

A good portion of the fun is discovering familiar characters and see what has changed about them. You'll see familiar faces or just familiar outfits, notice what changed on the first sight and wonder what what else is new about that character and where they'll go with him. The good thing about it that they don't feel neither better nor worse, gimmicky or unnecessary, just different and effective in waking my curiosity and it makes the impression the makers had fun with it for the most part. It succeeds where Justice League War, another alternate universe JLA movie, failed.

The story tells the origin of each of the three Justice League members with a plot-line in the current time and is pretty much straight forward, but interesting enough and well paced. The downside of is that you have to be familiar with the DC universe to a degree, otherwise you'll be wondering about the function of a couple of characters with small screen time and won't care for their destinies as much.

The action is a bit lacking, but the focus is more on storytelling and characters anyways, so its a good trade off. A change here is now that the JL member are much more ruthless and have less remorse, which results in some bloody kills. It's a good thing that the writers have more freedom in that regard, however in this case it feels a bit forced and clumsy. It feels weird seeing them crush some goons with a huge and heavy door and seeing blood coming out underneath it. Perhaps I'm just too used to the DC Animated series, but it felt more out of place rather than adding anything to it. They got it right in a few scenes, but for the most part it felt just like a gimmick - violence just to show they can do it, without any meaningful impact or purpose.

Overall it is good, solid and refreshing fun. It's a good mix of old and new with very similar art-style to the series and is a great way to start things off. It has it's faults like a few characters being degraded to throwaways (Darkseid, Harley Quinn in the shorts...) or not being more subtle on certain things, but the rest makes easily up for it. There is much potential and hopefully we'll see more of it, maybe even in a form of a series just like in the old days. It's deserves a shot.

I remember as if it was yesterday when I first became aware of this movie. It was a summer in the early 90s, there was a massive heat wave going on and whenever you watched TV or shuffled through magazines, you couldn't get around something not related to this movie. The hype about it was out of this world, seemingly even more than "Batman" got, which also was unreal. Everybody seemed to blown away by it and the commercials and trailers really got you pumped. Naturally, I was too young to watch it at the cinema, and that's something I am truly envious of people who did first time, so I had to wait until it was shown at a pay TV channel at my uncles apartment. And boy, it left an impact that sticks to this very day, more than 20 years later. If you by any chance haven't seen it yet, stop right there - go watch this movie with a good set-up with big speakers and a big screen, you can thank me later.

Regardless how I look at it, how this movie excels at seemingly everything is fascinating to say the least. Starting from the powerful and symbolic intro with the beautifully emotional score to the countless memorable and instant classic moments until the last lines of the simple yet incredibly effective epilogue, all of it feels like everyone involved in it knew exactly what they want to do, how to do it and why. It may be even more rare than winning the lottery. The level of production, amount of talent and creativity involved is something that no one came even close probably until "The Matrix".

The first striking impression about it is obviously the action and rightfully so as it is indeed groundbreaking. I still remember people talking about how amazing the chase scene where the truck drives of the bridge was. Even more impressive is that each and every action scene is consistent in quality so that you're constantly wowed by what is happening. The stunts are insane and hold up to this day and will years to come.

But don't let it's bombastic action and one-liners lead you into believing that it's all about it. No, there is so much more to it. Terminator 2 has evolving characters, each interesting and equally likable, a superb script which in clever ways expands on what already did happen and ads new twists to it, a deep story that deals with legitimate fears about bringing our own doom by constantly developing new, potentially dangerous inventions, about destiny, hope and what makes us human. Aside from all that, similar to the first movie, it retains the grueling tension and sense of danger that sometimes is on par with horror movies. A big contribution to this is of course the character T-1000 played by Robert Patrick. He truly understood how to make his character as intimidating and menacing as possible; that aura he has about him and frightening, cold stare is something only he can pull off. But it's not only his amazing performance, James Camerons direction is as equally important to make him so fear inducing. Every time he appears on screen you can hear his theme that has so much intensity to it that it always gave me a feeling of uneasiness and not without reason as he kills his victims in nightmarish ways without flinching. It wouldn't be as half as tense were it PG-13 I assure you.

Everyones performance in it is great. Arnold Schwarzenegger is incredibly professional, bad-ass, serious but with so much style and a bit of subtle humor in just the right doses. Linda Hamilton with perhaps the most difficult character to pull off but does it completely convincingly with a remarkable power performance through emotions, Edward Furlog as the charismatic 90s kid, both believable and relate-able. And so on and so forth. The true star however has to James Cameron, the man that managed it all. He must've have some sort of sixth sense in order to have a such clear vision of what he wanted in each in every scene, and it's not just the whole big picture of it, but all the small things too. How he build up that mall scene is just one of many displays of his genius.

Its perfect as filmmaking gets. If I had to nit-pick I'd say that in the second half are some slight lengths and it slows down a bit until the final confrontation, but in all honesty it is absolutely insignificant and minor. It's through and through fun, tense, smart, horrifying, cool, emotional... all the good stuff. I can't praise it enough, the music, the tone of the movie with its blue and black colours, the make-up, the truly convincing special effects which don't feel artificial as they do in newer movies and nowadays... just everything I possibly could think of is on a whole different level. Words don't do it justice, it needs to be seen. Even now, 24 years later, it still holds up extremely well and that alone is a testament on what of an accomplishment this movie is.

Ayrton Senna was before my time, back when he was at the heights of his F1 career until his death I was a small kid that had no interests in racing-sports (and in fact I still don't). But still, even then I heard people talking about him, seemingly idolizing and having sympathies for him like he was much more than someone who was just successful at what he was doing. I didn't find out why until I saw this documentary.

Senna is a intense documentary about a three times F1 World champion. But it's not really about racing, rather about how he was truly passionate about it. Regardless what you think of racing sports, Sennas remarkable story is more about being competitive at the highest level and him as a person. It practically could've been any other sport or competitive activity. It covers topics from his younger days when he was kart racing, his upcoming to the F1, his fierce rivalry with Alain Prost which at more occasions seemed to cross the lines, his rise to his championships and also his struggle with anything else beside the racing such as fame, politics and dubious, controversial changes in the technology of the F1 cars. What makes this documentary so engaging is how eventful his life was. There are many ups and downs he had, some so interesting and unpredictable they could easily make for a great movie. It keeps you curious to see what's going to happen next all the time, until the end, and even after that you might want to research more about him. Director Asif Kapadia did a good job choosing the scenes and showed a great sense for timing and appropriate music, and it didn't feel like it was "sugarcoated" at any point.

The documentary paints a clear image of how much of a down to earth and likable guy he was. People successful and professional as him usually tend to be more calculating, cold, maybe even arrogant, but he still remained true to himself with only his love for racing guiding him to overcome odds. And this, I believe, is why people love him so much. He wasn't really interested in fame and money, only to race and compete which is beautifully used to close out this documentary. True passion is what brands true champions and Ayrton Senna is a shining example of that.

More than 30 years has passed since "The Terminator" has been released. Wow, how time flies by... Still, the movie remains one of the most fascinating pieces of cinema history. It may show its age in some parts, where it's "so 80's" and goofy you'll probably have to giggle or roll your eyes and Arnold delivers his few lines with an accent thicker than pudding, but beside these minor scenes, it has aged well and truly reminds me that they don't make them like that anymore. And if you haven't seen it - what are you waiting for? Stop reading anything about it, go grab yourself a copy, turn the lights down and the sound up and enjoy this visionary masterpiece.

Why do I say is it visionary? Because there hasn't quite been anything like it before, not at this level of production. Just the idea that a near indestructible cyborg is haunting you for seemingly no reason is nightmare inducing, fundamentally great movie material. Not only that, but how James Cameron is expanding on it is sheer brilliance. Of course, since it involves sci-fi babble which you may or may not find far-fetched there is a slight chance you'll find it's plot to be nonsense. Regardless even if you dismiss the story as something completely stupid there is still plenty of impressive action, stunt-work, car chase-thrills and tension to keep you entertained. But it's far from being just mindless action. It is dark, it doesn't scare away to show some nasty stuff such as the Terminator repairing himself with this flesh torn or him going on a spree at the police station all of which cleverly emphasizes what an unstoppable, ruthless force we're dealing here with. Speaking of the scene at the police station, it is probably one of the most spectacular shootout scenes ever. The non-stop sounds of gunfire, smart use of POV shots which at the time were something creative and not overused, clear camera angles and uncompromised outcome make it something truly special. And Arnolds performance in it is pure badassery.

The Terminator is one of those must-see movies. Even now where it's formula has already been copied countless times, I still can't appreciate it enough. It is a product of one of the greatest filmmaker of our time, which earned its success by pure passion for the material, imagination and vision, and it shows. Truly a masterpiece.

AVGN episodes are a lot of fun. James Rolfe took all his frustrations, funny and odd moments one experiences while playing those old, retro games and created a series that not only old school gamers enjoy, but also the younger generations, because it introduces them, in a humorous way, how gaming used to be. It's a clever idea and executed in an efficient way. The show makes fun of the "so bad it's good" moments and, most importantly, feels genuine. The movie however... well where do I start?

Its not that much of a problem that the movie immediately feels amateurish. That is pretty much to be expected, after all this is a low-budget production and his first time at a project this big. The same goes for the plot, acting, writing, special effects etc. Some of it is deliberately that way. But even at the lowered expectations, I can't help it not to feel disappointed. The main issue here is that it tries to be so much more than it actually is. For a series that is about a guy expressing his frustrations on an old game (or movie) it sure strays far away form it. And this is where it loses all the charm that makes the series work. It never leaves enough room for the nerd to do what he always does. Too much of it is wasted on the build-up and on things that just aren't relevant to the series. His hilarious rants are replaced by incredibly cheesy dialog, lame jokes and bad slapstick. There isn't even an actual game in it, instead you get some imitation called "Eee Tee", which is understandable since they would have to get the license, but the let-down here is that the movie is all about getting him to review it, and not about the review itself. There isn't much game in it. What is kinda a saving grace for a movie like "The Wizard" is completely absent here.

It goes for the so-bad-its-good-humor, but being that the movie is so self-aware about it, it always ends up feeling forced like it deliberately lets something shitty happen and then just expects you to laugh it up. The first half of the movie drags on and almost bored me out. The second half was better, mainly due to the action, Godzilla-style scenes, which were fun, but ultimately are wasted because it ends absurdly quick with a poor conclusion.

So was the movie worth the wait and the sacrifices? Probably only for the die-hard AVGN fan(boy)s. Everyone else will likely agree that the amount of episodes he could've made in the meantime would've been so much more worth it. For James and his crew I hope it's a valuable lesson and that he stays humble about it. AVGN isn't exactly movie friendly material, so I at least can applaud his attempt. It is ironic that the movie thematizes the "shitty is the new good" idea yet tries to promote the same thing for itself, while completely failing to deliver any good laughs or at least make it feel authentic. The fun the crew apparently had while making it, never showed on the screen. Trash can be fun if done right, but that's not the case here. It's just so bad it's bad.

Let's face it - no one can finish Game of Death in the same way Bruce Lee would've done it. One would think that if anyone could've come the closest to his vision it had to be Robert Clouse, the director of "Enter The Dragon". Sadly if you've seen his version of it, you'll notice that his contribution is, lightly put, a disaster. Its shameless attempts at camouflaging the fact that Bruce Lee wasn't already part of it are commonly known: The infamous Cardboard-cutout, the doubles that don't look at all like Bruce, the shades, the beards, the recycled footage from past films, hilarious editing and the list goes on. Everyone knows it and everyone laughs at it.

The only saving grace is the footage Bruce had already filmed. These are truly great fights, but they are way overshadowed by the poor quality of the rest of the movie. You never get the feeling like you are watching one whole movie, rather than a mess of two movies.

The first half hour is though to sit-through and I was almost overwhelmed with boredom. It desperately lacks Bruces' charisma and his sense of direction and it goes to show that he was the true mastermind behind "Enter the Dragon". The original footage was also terribly dubbed, at least in the version I saw. Even for someone who is used to bad dubbing of HK movies, this one was exceptionally annoying and off.

The good thing is that you can find the Bruces' original, unedited footage online or on DVD, and it's best watched that way, with minimal editing from third parties and without some other directors involvement. There's roughly 40 minutes of it and it has scenes that didn't make it into Robert Clouses version. Now this is the good stuff one expects from a Bruce Lee film. I imagine this could've been his best movie to its date, even better than "Enter The Dragon". Its fights are awesome, full of memorable ideas and they are brimming with Bruces' charisma and intensity.

Clouses Version gets a 3 out of 10 only because of the so-bad-it's-good factor. If you want some genuine Bruce Lee action; go for the unedited footage. Even at its unfinished state it's light-years ahead of this one.

Being a fan of the Silent Hill games myself and knowing that a lot of fans had nothing but praise for the movie, I had good hopes this one would be finally it - the proof that great movies can be made based on video games. Resident Evil and Silent Hill I though would be good movie material; all one had to do is to produce the uneasy and intense atmosphere they had, but after the Resident Evil-adaptation failed so hard to even grasp what the (early) RE games were about and instead went it's own trashy action route with some minor RE stuff thrown in just so they can call it "Resident Evil", I had some reservations for Silent Hill.

Well, my concerns in that regard proved to be unnecessary. Very much unlike the Resident Evil movie, the makers took the material serious and they really stayed true to it. The town looks spot on, the music is mostly from the game, there's the thick fog, the rusty and bloody other dimension, the sirens, the nurses, some famous scenes are replicated from the game with the exact same angle-shots... you get the point. It takes some liberties, especially with the characters, but always in just the right amounts and it felt more or less justified. However, where the movie succeeded with being faithful to the game, it never managed to do something truly great with it. For once the movie explains too much and as a result demystifies a lot of things that would've been better left to the viewers imagination. It explains for example that the whole town shifts to another dimension where the "real" world can't reach it. It even goes so far to show how the people outside Silent Hill acknowledge and react to it. In the game that was never explained and it was never clear wherever the main character just had his own nightmare, is going insane, entered a cursed town or another dimension altogether. It also explains the sirens, which is just a minor detail, but again killed something that was far more interesting when left unexplained and used for symbolism. Another example would be Pyramid head. The movie is by far not as ambiguous as the games were and its truly a shame that they went that way.

Another problem I found with this adaptation was the pacing, and this is where I've noticed that a movie would have it hard to do it justice. Silent Hill games are, just the like the name implies, most of the time quiet and have a slow pace. The game every now and then serves you a tiny bit of story, and then lets you wander around the town uncovering bit for bit of the sad and horrible truth. These moments in-between storytelling allow the player to let them sink-in, giving them more weight which is even further amplified by disturbing symbolism and clever level design. The adaptation omits this by having a rather faster, event-to-event pace. This makes things feel a little rushed and cramped, although to be fair, was still pulled off decently, however some of the mood is lost in favor to some adrenaline-fueled thrills.

Speaking of the mood; the movie manages to capture the sinister and sadistic aspects of the game. Its quite astonishing how it depicts evil minds, making me feel almost angered about it. There are some truly wicked scenes which definitely are memorable, but on the other hand it never reaches the more subtle, psychological aspects the games are famous for. It's also really explicit.

Is has a few corny moments and dialog, but they didn't bother me much. Acting is decent for the most time. There are a few scenes where its bad but I guess that has more to do with the writing part, because I couldn't honestly imagine someone doing a better job in these certain scenes. Not a big deal, really. I also would've liked it to rely less on CGI and more on the practical effects, but again that's just another nit-pick.

So is it the best video-adaptation yet? Perhaps, but that's not saying a lot. Is it truly a great movie? No, sadly not. It's "just" OK. As far as staying true to the material and not sucking, it most surely has the best ratios. It is notable that effort went into this one and that they actually bothered to play and understand the game, but despite that some things were unluckily compensated and/or could've just been done better. It did not match the uneasy feeling I had while playing the games and never felt as personal to the main character. Still, what's there is far better than any of the Resident Evil life-action movies or Uwe Boll works and I really wanted to rate it higher than I did. If anything it is the best example that shows that there is potential in video-game adaptations when approached serious and without cash-grab intentions only, it just needed more polish. It gets a 6.5 out of 10 from me.

First off, you absolutely need to watch this movie in German (with some good knowledge in this language to boot), because A LOT of it will be lost in translation otherwise.

It's a specific kind of German humor, one that's definitely not everyone's cup of tea, especially since a couple of scenes involve humongous amount of poop, vomit and other grossities. But underneath it's crude exterior lies a clever exaggeration of real life situations based on the authors, Rötger "Brösel" Feldmann, experience.

Take for example when Werner is at work as a heating, air-conditioning and pluming mechanic/installer. I myself have worked in the same field, not the same job, but I've got to know a lot of people that did the same work as the characters and I recognized a lot of traits and mannerism from the movie. There were a lot of stuff going on that immediately felt familiar to me - of course in a exaggerated and comical way. One of the big ones is Meister Röhrich, Werners boss. This is the character that steals the show. The master apparently knows everything better yet is so clumsy that he always ends up causing literally disasters wherever he works at. This alone would be funny enough, but he speaks in a such strange voice and dialect, says a lot of weird job-specific terms, that it's ingenious. And would you know that he is based on a real person that refused to allow them to use his name?

Then there is the marketplace and football, the technical review of the choppers, the hospital visit and other every-once-in-a-while situations I'm sure everyone has come across and it's always fun to see with what Brösel comes up with to parody them.

As you may already know the movie has parts in it that are not animated and filmed live. These scenes are largely considered to be boring and everyone seems to skip them. To be honest, that's what I did too in the past, but over the time they kinda grew on me. Sure, they are amateurish, the humor consist mostly of burping and catchphrases and they generally pale in comparison to the animated material, but they are fun in a so-bad-its-good way and at least they seem to be self-aware about it.

When it comes down to the animation itself, there is little to complain about. It's not as fluent or sharp as e.g. Disney works and even a bit inconsistent and sketchy in the later parts of the movie, but overall just very well executed, with a good sense for physics and a big part why the slapstick in this movie works so well. There always are small things to discover that you didn't notice the first time. It's creative and full of ideas all the time.

The voice-acting was superbly done. Everyone fits perfectly and it's hard not to notice the fun the staff had while delivering their lines. Andi Feldmann easily deserves an award for his role as the eccentric Meister Röhrich.

Werner: Beinhart is pretty much the movie equivalent of a caricature painting. It's about the small things in real-life but exaggerated in a hilarious and creative manner. It is raw, unconcerned fun and it shows what a real person Rötger Feldmann is. It's just a shame that none of the sequels managed to get even close to it's level.

I still remember seeing this movie the first time back in '97 or '98 when it arrived on video. As a kid who was obsessed with the NBA and was a WB toons fan this had to be a treat.

When I first watched it, I couldn't really pinpoint what really bothered me. I didn't sit right with me and I remember regretting forcing my parents to buy the VHS. I know I was disappointed with the way basketball was depicted... it had absolutely no foul or any sort of rules for that matter. Naturally, no one should expect realistic basketball from this movie, but I still had hoped they would've managed to keep some rules in some way, while still delivering the looney exaggerations.

But as an adult I have to say that this is the least of the movies problems. At the time as a kid, I didn't notice that I didn't laugh... or better yet, I've noticed it - I just didn't want to admit it to myself. This is really weak humor, especially compared to the old, classic WB cartoons. It's uninspired, toned-down to the bare minimum and in some instances really annoyed me, because it tried to be "cool" at the same time. And that is the main problem I'm having with this one - it's not funny to me, at all, both as a kid and adult.

The acting is bad, but that's rather forgiving considering that NBA players aren't professional actors to begin with. The animation and artwork is good, great actually, but by far not enough to save it. It's just a heartless commercial for all the merchandise. Watch "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and/or "White Men Can't Jump" instead.

When I heard the news that the fourth Raimi movie would be canceled in favor of a reboot, I admit that I was disappointed - my spider-sense was tingling so to say. After a while, I've come to accept it and I started to believe that a fresh start could be awesome - after all there are many different Spidey story-lines they could pick from, so I was curious which they would choose and how it would differentiate from Raimis vision.

Marc Webb seemed to me as somewhat of an interesting if a bit of an odd choice. I've seen his "(500) Days of Summer" movie and though of it as an alright, lighthearted, boy-meets-girl flick, but nothing special. Once I saw "The Amazing Spider-Man" however, I kinda wished we could go back to the fourth Raimi movie.

The main problem being that the movies story itself is too similar to the first Spider-Man, that it seems almost entirely unnecessary. The changes don't have much of an impact to differentiate it enough and it seems like their entire point is for the sake of the upcoming sequels rather than this one, which makes the movie feel bland, as if it is holding back with ideas in order to have more material for it's sequels and spin-offs (and I'm pretty sure there's a lot more planned than they've already announced).

Another thing that was bothering me was the directing. The more down-to-earth and personal moments are clashing with the action and comical elements. They felt as if they were from a completely different movie, something like "(500) days of summer" or any movie that is more grounded in reality. Normally I don't have an issue with comicbook-heroes dealing with real-life stuff, to the contrary, but here they felt quite misplaced, off, and, for a lack of a better word, quite awkward. The movie doesn't have a natural flow. Everything feels so constructed, almost cold or soulless. In Raimis movies, you could literally feel his passion for the material and the fun he had making these movies. They had a spot-on mix of self-awareness, goofiness and seriousness and that gave them such a recognizable charm. In TASM however, this is absent. The human side of the main-character didn't suck me in. The movie has more of a serious and realistic tone to it, which could've been fun too, but it's just not pulled off that well.

As far as the action goes... it's pretty much what you'd expect it to be. Nothing special or memorable, but alright. From the CGI I kinda expected more, especially to be less obvious in some scenes where Spidey is the only thing animated. The cast and acting was good and consistent, even though I still think Emma Stone is a bit of a miscast. Her look just doesn't quite fit the character in my mind - but it's just a minor nitpick from my side.

As a long time Spider-Man fan I expected a lot more from this one. For a fresh start a good chunk of the story felt too familiar, almost like a deja vu, which should've been avoided. It's not a bad movie by any means, but it strikes me just as plain mediocre, even more so compared to the Raimi trilogy. It just doesn't stick.

"The Fountain" is indeed a very difficult movie to review. It's one of those kind of movies that doesn't explain much of what is happening, and lets the viewer come up with its own explanations.

For me, the balance is crucial in such movies. It doesn't want you to tell too much, but if it doesn't tell enough, it might end up being too hard to follow or incomplete. As much as I love movies that challenge the viewer, I always felt that "The Fountain" is too demanding for it's own good and ends up explaining too little. It goes overboard with cultural and religious symbolism, so much that I felt left out because I simply don't know what it is referring to. I admit that I have little knowledge about these things, but despite that, halfway through the movie I thought it'll be one of my all-time favorites. After all, the build-up is promising, the scenery and visuals are beautiful and the music is fantastic. It sets the right mood.

But when the movies goes about to resolve things it becomes very hard to understand why its suddenly happening that way. It felt like an absurd twist, one that could be argued to be either brilliant or lame. I tend to lean more towards the latter.

It's a movie that probably anyone will experience differently, and if that was Aronofskys goal - then he obviously achieved it. I can imagine that someone who likes symbolism or has enough knowledge about this movies thematic will find much joy in it. But the average viewer might get the impression that it doesn't give him enough to work with in order to tell a complete story.

I hold DCA movies (and series) in high regard. A bunch of them is a great mix of good story, great action, mostly superb voice-acting and were overall well directed. Even with the many characters as there were in Crisis on two Earths, they still managed to give them the right amount of pace, balance and felt well-rounded.

Justice League: War unfortunately is a disappointment almost in any regard. It is supposed to be a fresh start, which by itself isn't a bad idea, but it struggles hard as the run-time wasn't really used to introduce the characters properly nor did they manage to allow them to establish much of a connection. It gave me the impression its source material isn't well-suited for a movie. Unlike previous DCA movies, which are mostly based on already established stories, this one tries to tell a new origin story, but at the same time expects you to be aware of the new 52 comics, something that I didn't felt was needed in any of the previous ones I've watched.

It has a familiar feel to it, almost like a retelling of the great Justice League TV series, just not as good; with less character background, a bare-bone plot and changes only in minor and irrelevant parts. No one was given any real personal reasons for what they do, except maybe Cyborg, which got more of an introduction, even though a underwhelming one. It just seems like most of them just happened to be there, doing what they usually do - fight bad/good guys, which in turn makes the movie very predictable. Very unlike the previous "Justice League: Flashpoint Paradox," there is just no emotional pay-off whatsoever.

All that would be still somewhat forgivable if the action and pacing would hold it up, but sadly that's not entirely the case. Considering who the villain is, I found myself surprised how most of the fights were unsatisfying and sometimes just awkward and mediocre. For the most part the fights consist of JL-members battling minions. But even those were more fun to watch than the boring fight against the main villain. Only fight scenes where the main protagonist is Wonder Woman packed a punch.

As far as the character-personalities are concerned, I'd say it's a matter of preference. I don't really mind that they kinda experimented with them, but they should have been flashed out more. It's not clear what they've tried to achieve with the changes. Voice acting is on the forgettable side. No one stands out, but it's not that bad either.

In conclusion JL: War is overall mediocre. It is indecisive: the new stuff is not daring enough and the old stuff feels too familiar. But it may just be an introduction to hopefully more interesting things to come.