STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI - Movie Review

Title: Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi
Running Time: 153 min
Director: Rian Johnson
Writer: Rian Johnson
Starring: Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver, Carrie Fisher (†), Oscar Isaac, John Boyega, Domhnall Gleeson, Kelly Marie Tran, Laura Dern, Benicio del Toro, Andy Serkis

Review:
'Tis that time of the year again. No, not Christmas. Star Wars! There is no need to explain this movie franchise's significance in pop culture. In the night from Wednesday to Thurday many Star Wars fans (myself included) waited in line for the midnight premiere. Gatherings like this have a magical atmosphere, and yet there is this saying "Nobody hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans" and it is somewhat true. The people who debate the quality of these movies most passionately and fiercely with each other are people whose common ground is their love for the original trilogy. "The Force Awakens" was a critical an financial success, but that didn't keep it from starting brisk discussions. The same applies to "Rogue One". So is the eighth episode of this saga the movie to unite the fans?
Probably not. "Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi" is a cinematic event that in order to take this franchise in a few completely new directions, takes a few risks. Some might not be pleased by this, others might love it, and some others might be torn. The film can basically be divided into three story-lines that of course cross paths and come together in the end, but stay separate for most of the movie. One revolves around Poe Dameron, Leia and the other members of the resistance fighting (or rather running from) Generl Hux and his ruthless First Order fleet. One sends Finn and a new character, Rose, on a mission to a different part of the galaxy. And the final one follows Rey and Luke on the very same Island on which we last saw them.
The latter story-line could be seen as the main plot, and it is here that the movie works best. Mark Hamill is joyfully excellent as this older version of Luke and his performance was definitely worth the wait. In it, you can see the young Jedi we saw in the original trilogy, but also how he has grown and his worldview has changed. At points it even felt like Hamill was channeling Yoda, another Jedi master whom we met long after he went into exile. Everything concerning him, Rey and also Kylo Ren is absolutely absorbing. It is here where Rian Johnson takes most liberties with the source material, deepens the lore and pushes the boundaries of what is possible in this universe. On the other side is the resistance's story (benefiting from a charismatic performance by Oscar Isaac, as well as Carrie Fisher and Lara Dern as graceful leaders) that cranks up the tension through the entire film. Doom is imminent and Johnson really manages to make you feel like the stakes are high.You also certainly can find shades of  "Rogue One" in this.
The Finn and Rose story-line is the one where the movie stumbles. The place they travel to is something audiences haven't seen before in a Star Wars film. While I respect the film makers for trying something new and expanding the universe, this particular sequence was too close to our own world to me. Instead of being transformed to a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, it felt like I was watching my own planet a hundred years from now, which didn't work for me. In general, that plot thread felt a little disjointed from the film, like it was just tagged on to give characters something to do. As an in-universe short film it would have probably worked much better.
Thematically however, all these three stories fit perfectly together as they all explore the grey areas in this tale about the Dark Side and the Light. In that sense, Rian Johnson deconstructs the Star Wars saga, in which the bad guys have always been all very bad and the good guys all exemplary human beings. Yes, there have always transitions from one side to another, but no one ever stayed in between for long. It's an immensely interesting field to explore and the film dives into it head first. If after "The Force Awakens" you thought this story was going to go in a certain direction, Johnson will surprise you with more then one unexpected turn. On the one hand it makes this movie feel absolutely fresh and it fills it with multiple awesome "Holy Shit!"-character-moments. On the other hand it becomes clear that Rian Johnson wasn't interested in every mystery J.J. Abrahams put out there and cherry picked the parts he thought to be relevant. As a result, some big questions from the previous film stay unanswered and some eager theorists will be left frustrated.
Another thing that might put some people off is the humor. It is the first time that you can feel Disney's influence a little bit, as they have created a formula in which they put in unexpected jokes to break the tension. It doesn't work every time and even feels misplaced at points. But since this film builds up so many strong and emotionally charged moments, these missteps are not nearly big enough to tear them down.
The one big thing that is probably indisputable however is that this is one of the most beautiful Star Wars films ever made. The images are gorgeous. Rian Johnson treats Jedi in this film like the Japanese cinema treated Samurai. Staging them in a heroic and dignified way. The colors, the contrasts - everything works. He opens with one of the best space battles seen on film and then graduates to giving us maybe the best and most creative lightsaber fight in Star Wars history. In the end he tops it of with an action sequence that, thanks to its setting, is worthy of being put on a canvas. He definitely knows what he is doing.
In the end, "Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi" might not be without its lows, but its highs are so high that that doesn't really matter. It is a nonconformist blockbuster that subverts expectations and puts twists and turns on a lot of things you thought you knew about this franchise. Controversy between fans is inevitable, but even if you don't agree with Johnson's ideas, this film is worth watching just to explore them and be part of the vivid discussion. And of course for the ass-kicking visuals!

Since I had a hard time writing this review while pussyfooting around potential spoilers, you will find a Spoiler-Review on this blog soon.

For Fans Of:
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
Looper (2013)
Hero (2002)
Films by Akira Kurosawa

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

IN THE FADE (AUS DEM NICHTS) - Movie Review

Title: In the Fade (orig.: Aus dem Nichts)
Running Time: 106 min
Director: Fatih Akin
Writer: Fatih Akin, Hark Bohm
Starring: Diane Kruger, Denis Moschitto, Numan Acar, Samia Muriel Chancrin, Johannes Krisch, Hanna Hilsdorf, Ulrich Brandhoff

Review:
Fatih Akin is one of the most renowned directors in Germany. The award-winning film maker of Turkish parentage is known for being the cinematic voice of people with a migration background as he has often put their reality of life on screen. Thus, it comes to no surprise that a series of murders of nine immigrants committed by the far-right German terrorist group NSU (National Socialist Underground) inspired the story of his latest project. Especially when you take into consideration that the investigation and trial let to the conclusion that the NSU's network spans into government authorities.
"In the Fade" is a fantastic blend of personal drama, trial film and revenge thriller. It tells the story of Katja Sekerci whose Kurdish husband and son are killed in a racially motivated bombing. Akin starts his story with Katja and Nuri marrying... in prison. It's somewhat cute, but first and foremost a clear statement by the director. You should empathize with these victims, even if you don't sympathize with them. Nobody deserves this. The protagonist is imperfect and Akin refuses to manipulate the audiences through dramatic music cues or other similar cinematic tricks. As a result the movie has a coldness to it at points. This, as well as the fact that this is a rather quietly told film, add to its somber atmosphere.
But Akin's directorial voice is loud and clear. Because he has perfectly internalized the famous rule "Show, don't tell".  His images hold more explanatory power than any piece of dialogue could. Katja crying her lungs out in the brightly colored bed in her deceased son's bedroom, says everything about the deepness of her mourning in a single frame. Her getting a tattoo in an incredibly painful spot without even flinching, expresses her emotional numbness better than any variation of the phrase "I feel so empty." would. A courtroom with Katja sitting in the background, fighting the urge to burst into tears while a medical specialist quotes the autopsy report with brittle professional detachment, chokes you up. And then there is a particular tracking shot through a bathroom that will chill you to the bone. It is excellent craftsmanship.
Of course, leading lady Diane Kruger is the pivotal element in all of these shots. While I have found her acting a little superficial in the past, she is a revelation in this movie. Displaying unbridled raw emotions and embracing her characters flaws, she gives one of the strongest and authentic performances of this year, as well as the best of her career. She and Akin are a fantastic pairing.
However, the film is not exempt from possible criticism. If you were looking for a nuanced exploration of the NSU's structure and a differentiated look at their place within the system of government, you'll come away empty-handed. Akin has no interest in making this a film with documentary qualities. Nor does he want to provide moral guidance. It seems that primarily he wanted to vent his anger and express how infuriating such a mindless and hateful act of violence is. In that sense, it is not a rationally designed movie, but one driven by emotion. As a result, one could argue that in the third act, the film undercuts its own message. But it is likely that Akin wants to present chaos rather than order, and thus, doesn't care for making sense of it all. To show the senselessness of such an atrocity is the message itself.
So even though "In the Fade" is not the investigative movie some had hoped for, it is not one bit less powerful. On the contrary, it is one of the most thrilling films of the year that will captivate you from its first minute to the last. This ingeniously constructed piece of cinema surely leaves an impression and will stick with you long after you've left the theater. A movie that is most definitely worth your time and money.

For Fans Of:
Taxi Driver (1976)
Prisoners (2013)
Léon: The Professional (1994)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)
Head On (2004) [orig.: Gegen die Wand]

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

JUSTICE LEAGUE - Movie Review

Title: Justice League
Running Time: 120 min
Director: Zack Snyder
Writers: Chris Terrio, Joss Whedon
Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher, Jason Momoa, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, J.K. Simmons

Review:
Here we are. After four years of establishing their cinematic universe, DC is finally bringing their big superhero team-up to the silver screen. It's been a weird and rocky road so far. "Man of Steel" was deemed 'okay' by most people. Despite a small and vocal fan-base, "Batman V Superman" and "Suicide Squad" were shred to pieces by the media. "Wonder Woman" on the other hand was a critical and commercial smash hit. Then, "Justice League" was produced. Just before filming was finished, Zack Snyder dropped out due to his daughter's tragic death. Joss Whedon took over to direct the rest of the film and Warner Bros. Studios ordered extensive reshoots to match the final product with the lighter tone of "Wonder Woman" rather than Snyder's much darker vision. So with all this trouble in the forefront, how did this movie turn out?
The short version would be: Fine. The long version is a little more complex. A lot of the movie going experience depends on ones expectations. If you were afraid to see a "Batman V Superman" level clusterfuck, you will be pleasantly surprised. If you've loved all of the DC movies so far, you'll probably love this too. If you were expecting something completely innovative in superhero movies, you will not find it here. There is some stuff that works and some that doesn't.
The whole "getting-the-team-together" part actually works quite well. The reason these heroes come together certainly seems dynamic, and it is always fun to see a recruitment dialogue. In general there are some cool exchanges between characters. Wonder Woman making clear to Cyborg that she outsmarted him. Batman telling a self-doubting Flash, that he should just save one person. Aquaman being involuntarily vulnerable. It's like an extension of the one good piece of dialogue we saw in "Batman V Superman", where Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent have a conversation in which they both insinuate to know each others secret identity. The conversations especially work because of the great cast. Each one of the actors fits their role well and gives a more than convincing performance. Especially Jason Momoa managed to get quite a lot out of one of the most laughed at superheros. And then there are some incredibly cool shots that look like they are taken straight out of the comic book panels. Flash's use of the speed force is great and when Superman fights him despite of it, it makes for a pretty memorable sequence.
But the movie certainly has flaws. A minor gripe is that it kind of ignores some of the things that were presented in"Batman V Superman". Although it is understanable that the film makers wanted to distance themselves from that disaster, it is odd to see believes or character traits contradicting what came before. Most noticable is the lack of care for secret identities (Aquaman for example casually identifies Bruce Wayne as Batman in front of an entire village). Other than that, though the film brings up a lot of intriguing plot threats and themes, it doesn't take the time to explore those thoroughly. A two hour run time for a superhero film might be refreshingly short, but when a movie has to set up so much, it is not enough. Another big issue is the way the film handles its female team member. Gal Gadot is once again fantastic in the role. But next to the unpleasant feeling that her skirt got a little shorter, there are too many low angle camera shots that very obviously only there to showcase her butt. And a quick Flash-fell-inot-her-cleavage joke wasn't missing either. In the wake of the #MeToo-debate it is especially painful to witness this recent cinematic female icon become sexualized after all. Too me, this was more upsetting than the final battle being so CGI-heavy.
But in the end, there is fun to be had with "Justice League". While other DC outings have almost been offensively bad, this one is not worth having strong feelings about. It's fine. Imperfect and yet showing some good approaches to steer this cinematic universe in a better direction, you should watch this if you've loved DC so far; if you want understand upcoming continuity; or if you want to see some superheros do some bad-ass superhero fighting.

For Fans Of:
Man of Steel (2013)
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Batman Forever (1995)
Superman III (1983)
Transformers (2007)
Suicide Squad (2016)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS - Movie Review

Title: Murder on the Orient Express
Running Time: 114 min
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Writer: Michael Green
Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Daisy Ridley, Johnny Depp, Judi Dench, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer, Willem Dafoe, Penélope Cruz, Derek Jacobi, Olivia Colman

Review:
After Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had retired his famous Sherlock Holmes novels, there was another writer to seize the mantel and please the public with murder mysteries and detective stories. Agatha Christie's classic whodunits have inspired film makers multiple times before. This time, Shakesperean director and Gilderoy Lockhart himself, Kenneth Branagh has taken it upon himself to bring one of her novels to the big screen. And while the same story had already been adapted in 1974, it looks like Branagh spiced up his version with 21st century visuals.
"Murder on the Orient Express" is a solid piece of film making, that might not quite live up to its full potential, but will entertain you nonetheless. Branagh is a master in self-staging. His arrogant and slightly quirky Hercule Poirot takes the spotlight, while the rest of the stellar cast takes a back seat. It makes sense of course, because in murder mysteries it is typical that the suspects are merely chess peaces to serve the story. And having almost every character being played by a renowned actor prevents a premature casting-based solving of the mystery. But if you were expecting an ensemble acting tour de force, you will not find it here. Branagh's One-Man-Show however is so enjoyable that it makes up for that. Every time he directs himself, he takes the opportunity to pick out the role he really wants to play. Thus, he puts a lot of heart and enthusiasm in his performances, that perfectly translates to the screen. It's an absolute blast to see him act.
His directing is similarly joyful. Next to his trademark Dutch tilt, he uses some other lesser used camera angles every now and again. Things like the God's view shot and the POV shot combined with long takes add to the mysterious atmosphere of the film. Furthermore, this film simply looks great. The colors are vibrant; the contrasts are strong; the sets, costumes and props look cool; and of course Branagh's moustache is magnificent. The whole movie is visually slick.
But while the film doesn't have any problem in that area, it is the script that misses some opportunities to have a greater impact. The film's emotional punchline is that Poirot's believe system is challenged to an extent that he struggles to hold on to it. However, the set up of this believe system isn't strong enough. Poirot mentions it ones or twice in the first third of the film, but it isn't really reinforced. Even when it starts to crumble, the film doesn't take its time to show Poirot in solitude, doubting himself and the values that he stands for. He's constantly busy solving the case. It is only in the finale that he pours his heart out. And though Branagh's acting is terrific in that moment, it would have been more effective if we saw more cracks in his faҫade before it breaks.

Secondly, the film does not give the viewer the complete satisfaction of piecing things together themselves, even retrospectively. Poirot jumps to a lot of conclusions off-screen and so the audience is often presented with the solution without knowing how exactly we got there. The story also focuses on motive rather than the exact details and the timeline of the crime and so the events are not entirely reconstructable for the viewer either. 

In general however, this is a perfectly enjoyable film. If you have the spare time and money, watch it in the theater to enjoy its visual style. Otherwise, you can easily pop it in on a DVD night with some friends, preferably on a big TV.  Rewatchable for Branagh's performance alone and certainly arousing interest for possible sequels, this solid murder mystery is definitely good fun. 

For Fans Of:
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

THOR: RAGNAROK - Movie Review

 Title: Thor: Ragnarok
Running Time: 130 min
Director: Taika Waititi
Writer: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Tessa Thompson, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Mark Ruffalo, Idris Elba, Anthony Hopkins,

Review:

Although Marvel has never released a truly terrible movie, there have been some missfires in the past. "Thor: The Dark World" was one of them. In fact, with the exception of Captain America, none of the other Marvel solo movies have managed to equal the critical success of their first installment. But with Kiwi director Taika Waititi at the helm and the addition of The Hulk, the trailer for the Norse god's third outing looked promising. So can this sequel deliver?
Yes and no. "Thor: Ragnarok" is a fun and flashy blockbuster that will entertain you for its entire two hour run time. Not more and not less. Taika Waititi surely steered the ship in a new direction. This Thor is much more comedic and much more colorful than its predecessors. Visually, this movie is closer to the "Guardians of the Galaxy" than to previous films about the god of thunder. And yet it makes sense. Asgard still looks like the fantasy realm we came to know. When Thor accidentally strands on the garbage planet Sakaar however, he has obviously landed in that weird edge region of the galaxy, where Peter Quill and his gang easily could go about their business. But Waititi doesn't rest on the shoulders of what James Gunn already created. Instead he lets out his own unbridled creativity and gives us some awesome set pieces that suck you into this crazy, iridescent world. Despite all the flashiness, Waititi manages to shoot the action sequences in a way that they don't feel agitated, but you can fully enjoy their grand scale. He also seemed to have created a positive atmosphere on set, as all the actors seem to be enjoying themselves. Tessa Thompson is a great new addition as this bad-ass warrior, although her introduction entails that the film completely ignores the existence of Jaimie Alexander's Lady Sif (Is a movie only allowed to have one heroine?). Also, Jeff Goldblum shines as a character that is basically a heighten space-version of himself. The real scene-stealer, however, is Mark Ruffalo. His gentle performance of both, The Hulk and Bruce Banner, elevates the material and it is the scenes when he is on screen that are the movie's best.
As I mentioned before, the humor was also an element that was really amped up in this movie. Unfortunately, this is where it runs into its biggest problem. Although the larger amount of the jokes do work, the immensely unserious tone of the film robs it of carrying any emotional weight. Everything becomes a knee-slapper. Yes, Thor is funnier than ever, but he has also never been so indifferent. The betrayal, the lies and even the deaths of the people around him, seem to effect him not one bit. He keeps his cool no matter what. As if abnegation and minimisation replaced all of his healthy coping mechanisms. When your main character constantly goofs around like that, it's hard to really feel the threat of pending doom that the movie presents. For a film about the complete annihilation of our hero's home, the stakes feel astonishingly low. But not only Thor has become a sitcom-version of himself. Loki, who was first introduced as a maliciously scheming, complex and intelligent villain, has become a walking punchline. The ease with which he can be overpowered is Marvel's latest running gag. He is a character deprived of real personal growth, doomed to run in circles. Inevitably, the two brother's relationship changed as well. Once a tragedy of Shakespearean caliber, it has now transformed into a "Dumb-and-Dumber"-esque routine. Even the resolution of Bruce Banner's personal struggle is played as a joke in the film's finale. "Sharknado 5" had more emotional moments than this (I'm not even kidding).
The other problems with the film (what exactly was Karl Urban's purpose in this movie?) are forgivable, but when everyone becomes the comic relief, there is no tension left to be relieved from.
It is a shame, really, because within the story of "Thor: Ragnarok" lies great dramatic potential and even the possibility to make a statement about postcolonialism (a thanks to B.A. for pointing that out). But it all gets lost in the laughs. The cool new characters and the zany visuals can't help over the fact that this is ultimately a frothy live action cartoon. Artistically great, yet emotionally empty, this film is good for a DVD night with friends in order to have some fun or catch up with the cinematic universe. If you've never had a problem with Marvel's joke quantity or even enjoyed it, you might even love this film. But if, like me, you need at least a little bit of pathos in your superhero movies, this film might disappoint you.

For Fans Of:
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 (2017)
2 Fast 2 Furious (2005)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Suicide Squad (2016)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Movie Review

 Title: Blade Runner 2049
Running Time: 164 min
Director: Dennis Villeneuve
Writers: Hampton Fancher, Michael Green
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Jared Leto, Robin Wright, Ana de Armas, Dave Bautista, Sylvia Hoecks

Review:

Late sequels to old classics are a mixed bag at best. While some film makers manage to reinvigorate a series like Ryan Coogler did with "Creed", too often we get lifeless rehashs that fail to capture the original's spirit (think "Indiana Jones 4", "Die Hard 5" or whatever the hell Ridley Scott is doing with his Alien franchise). 1982's "Blade Runner" was one of the few old gems that had stayed untouched. Then however, a sequel was announced with none other than up-and-coming director Dennis Villeneuve attached. So has the creative mind behind critically acclaimed films like "Sicario", "Prisoners" and "Arrival" managed to give us a worthy continuation of this beloved sci-fi classic?
"Blade Runner 2049" is indeed an excellent piece of film making that can be enjoyed by fans of the original and newbies alike. Although a knowledge of the first movie certainly enhances the experience, Villeneuve managed to create a film that completely stands on its own. Including an omission of Hollywood's bad habit of setting up a possible franchise. Instead, he trusts the material he was given and displays his thorough appreciation for the original. This truly feels like the same dystopian version of 2019 that Harrison Ford wandered through, with the only exception that technology has advanced over the past three decades. But Villeneuve and his team don't only develop the concepts of the original further. They also broaden this world by going beyond the gloomy neo(n)-noir urban core of Los Angeles, and they explore new and never before seen aspects of it. As a result, many different sci-fi ideas, themes and elements are touched upon. Our relationship with technology, the ethics of our scientific evolution and the question of what makes us human.

Guiding us through it all is Ryan Gosling's short-named protagonist "K". Though this Blade Runner is much less cynical than Rick Deckard, he is just as efficient at his job as a detective/assassin. Gosling is perfectly cast, since he has proven time and again that he especially shines when playing ass-kicking introverts. We follow K‘s path as he tries to solve a mystery that leads him deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole. It is a puzzle that seems to get bigger with every piece he finds. It is only at a much later stage that Harrison Ford steps into the picture. And although this might be his best performance in the past decade, the movie is wise to focus mostly on Gosling’s character. Because in true Blade Runner fashion, our protagonist‘s journey is not only a search for the truth, but also a road to self-discovery. 

This series stays ‘the thinking man’s science-fiction‘. And Villeneuve stages it with poetic beauty. Just as he previously did with „Arrival“, he puts you in awe as you marvel at everything that unfolds on screen. His cinematographer Roger Deakins delivers breathtaking shots. Long, wide, and each of them distinctly colored. You could put this movie on mute and it would still be an absolute joy to watch. Then however, you would be missing the grandiose score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch. Reusing the synth sounds from the '80s and adding Zimmer‘s trademark drums creates a soundtrack that goes from meditative to vibrant whenever the story demands it.
Everyone involved is contributing to make this movie the artistically precious blockbuster that it is. The set- and costume designers, the lighting technicians, and of course the stellar supporting cast. Thanks to "House of Cards", Robin Wright has become the go-to actress for strong female leaders and so she seems to be playing her part with the greatest of ease. Ana de Armas shows that she is ready to get her big break in Hollywood, and even former wrestler Dave Bautista gives a performance that is unexpectedly vulnerable.
All this makes "Blade Runner 2049" one of the best movies of the year. Although it has a considerable length of two hours and 45 minutes, the masterful execution makes this film worth while. A magnificent piece of intellectual sci-fi that is as thrilling as it is thought-provoking. Watch it on the largest screen you can get your hands on to be fully engulfed by its elegancy. If (like me) you can't get enough after watching it in theaters the first time, watch it again (seriously, it is criminally underperforming), or fill in the gaps between 2019 and 2049 with the three in-universe short films that Warner Bros. Pictures released on YouTube.

For Fans Of:
Blade Runner (1982)
Children of Men (2006)
Inception (2010)
Her (2013)
Ghost in the Shell (1995)
Minority Report (2002)
Ex Machina (2014)
12 Monkeys (1995)
Macbeth (2015)
Arrival (2016)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

IT - Movie Review

 Title: IT
Running Time: 135 min
Director: Andy Muschietti
Writer: Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, Gary Dauberman
Starring: Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Jack Dylan Grazer, Chosen Jacobs, Wyatt Oleff, Nicholas Hamilton

Review:

Stephen King's books have been the source material for many film makers for a long time. Just two month ago, I reviewed the cinematic attempt to bring his "The Dark Tower" novels to the big screen. This time one of his most famous characters, Pennywise the endlessly creepy clown, makes a comeback in this 21st century update of an old horror classic.
2017's "IT" isn't a shot-for-shot remake of the original, but rather approaches the story from a few different angles. Firstly, the story is set in the late 1980's, updating the film for younger audiences and riding on the current nostalgia wave of that particular time-period. Secondly, the adults take a back seat and the movie focusses solely on the kids' perspective.
As a result, the success of the film rests on the shoulders of an incredibly young ensemble. Fortunately, this group of child actors seems to have had a lot of fun on set, because their chemistry translates to the big screen. Additionally, each of them (with maybe the exception of Wyatt Oleff's character) is essential to some part of the film, be it thematically, story-wise or concerning the atmosphere. Finn Wolfhard (hot of "Stranger Things") shines as the comic relief guy, while Jaeden Lieberher and Sophia Lillis carry the more dramatic parts of the film. But also Jeremy Ray Taylor and Jack Dylan Grazer bring a sincere genuinity to the Losers' Club. These guys seem like a real group of friends and at a few points in the film we can see them simply hanging out. It gives the movie a coming-of-age/adventure film vibe.
Don't be fooled, however. "IT" does earn its R-rating for 'violence, bloody images, and language'. On the one hand, the kids cuss and swear, which doesn't only add to the authenticity, but is also good for some laughs. On the other hand, we have, of course, the stuff that every horror fan came for. Because 'It' turns into everything that you fear, and so you get everything from torn-off limbs to waves of blood, plaque-infested hobos, and creepy little kids. It all unfolds in traditional horror movie fashion. And of course, there is the creature's favorite form: The gruesome clown Pennywise, played excellently by Bill Skarsgård. His portrayal is in no way inferior to Tim Curry's. And although some old-school film buffs might enjoy the 90's practical effects over the CGI touch-ups this new version gets at points, there's absolutely no denying that Skarsgård nails the the part when it's just him in make-up. His smile is super creepy, his eyes are insanely big and he barely ever blinks. It's a genius performance. 
Some of the main character's parents also come in as secondary villains, filling up the small town of Derry with threats left and right. Nicholas Hamilton joins in as well as the violent bully Henry. While he already had the most punchable face in the "Captain Fantastic" cast, here it is complemented through a mullet in such a way that it gives Jack "Joffrey" Gleeson a run for his money*.
The only real problem with the film is that it goes on for a little too long. Once the kids have forged out a plan of how to overcome the blood-thirsty antagonist, the viewer gets the idea of how things will play out. The script however throws in a few obstacles and complications here and there, that don't really add to the experience as a whole. Instead of creating extra tension, it makes the finale drag a tiny little bit.
But apart from that, "IT" is a really entertaining ride that proves once again, that horror works best when it is paired with elements of other genres. The fun sequences in which you get to know the gang, make it all the more impactful when the tide turns and their lifes are in danger. Stepping into the territory of an 80's coming-of-age drama and yet being more brutal than its predecessor, 2017's "IT" will leave you curious about what's next. And since the movie hasn't touched on the grown-up portion of the story yet, you can be damn sure that you will find out...

For Fans Of:
IT (1990)
Stranger Things (TV Series 2016- )
Stand By Me (1986)
Super 8 (2012)
E.T. (1982)
Gremlins (1984)
Scream (1996)
Krampus (2015)
The Goonies (1985)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

*Fun Fact: Game of Thrones actor Jack Gleeson and my humble self actually share the same date of birth!

MOTHER! - Movie Review

Title: mother!
Running Time: 122 min
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writer: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Domhnall Gleeson, Stephen McHattie

Review:

Whether you are a fan of his work or not, Darren Aronofsky is an intriguing director at the very least. He has tackled many different topics and genres including surrealism (" π"), sports drama ("The Wrestler"), fantasy ("The Fountain"), psychological thriller ("Black Swan"), biblical epic ("Noah") and more. Nevertheless, he still fills his films with personal trademarks and has made a name for himself for being controversial and disturbing at times. Now, the director dives into the horror genre to get audience's hackles up.
His latest film certainly is a unique cinematic experience, although it really isn't a film for everyone. While the trailers promised a "haunted house vs. home invasion" type movie, you get much more than you bargained for. The story of a couple living alone in a house, that suddenly gets a dubious visitor, seemed simple enough. But "Mother!" is a grande metaphorical horror film, that is as disturbing as it is strange. Getting weirder with every minute, it slowly builds up to a complete escalation in its finale.
Aronofsky proves that he is a master of the craft as he takes you through this mysterious journey. The horror genre is often considered to be cheap, because scaring people is incredibly easy (even your regulare house cat can make you jump every now and then). To frighten someone to the core however, is a wholly different story. Aronofsky for example refrains from using the typical musical cues that notify you of an upcoming scare. In fact, he doesn't use any music at all. Instead, the noises of the house take center stage. Squeaking floorboards, muffled footsteps and rattling furniture. Everything becomes alive to create a truly haunting atmosphere. Additionally, the director follows his protagonist with an extensive use of close-ups and tracking shots, trapping us in her perspective and making the movie all the more claustrophobic.
This is also where Jennifer Lawrence' splendid acting comes in. After kind-of phoning it in in "X-Men: Apocalypse" and "Passengers", she shows once again why she is an Oscar-caliber actress. Her sincere and empathy prompting performance draws you into the movie and makes the things that happen to her all the more uncomfortable.
Because content-wise, this is a really uncomfortable film. The story equals a fever dream, where there seems to be no reason behind the string of events. In nightmarish fashion strange and (towards the finale) very disturbing imagery unravels. Some people will find this unnecessarily harsh and the chaos of this movie appalling. Others might relish this uncensored unraveling of Aronofsky tormented artistic mind. Because within this turmoil of weird incidents, a lot of  themes are touched upon. The metaphorical storytelling allows many different interpretations. Maybe one will stick with you. Maybe you'll have none and only after digging into others people's analyses it will fall like scales from your eyes. And maybe you'll find this film so bloated and pretentious that you just don't care. But Aronofsky surely put a lot of his thoughts and grand questions about human nature and our world in general into this film. Whether you will enjoy this ride certainly depends on your affinity for the Kafkaesque. Either way, it will be unlike anything you have seen in theaters lately.

For Fans Of:
Franz Kafka
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Only God Forgives (2013)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

AMERICAN MADE - Movie Review

Title: American Made
Running Time: 115 min
Director: Doug Liman
Writer: Gari Spinelli
Starring: Tom Cruise, Sarah Wright, Domhnall Gleeson, Alejandro Edda, Mauricio Mejía, Caleb Landry Jones

Review:

I used to say that Tom Cruise has never made a bad film. Since this year's "The Mummy" I might have to asterisk that. Still, the actor whose full name is Thomas Cruise Mapother IV, is one of the last true movie stars. He manages to get people into theaters and deliver great performances, in spite of his more than controversial private life (Mel Gibson probably really wants to know his secret). For his latest film, Tom takes on the role of Barry Seal. A talented pilot who has worked not only for the CIA and the DEA, but also for the infamous Medillin cartel. The later of which has become particularly populare in mainstream media through Netflix's "Narcos". Surely, the film makers hoped to wanted into that.
"American Made" is biographical crime film that chooses fun action over personal drama. And even though it would have benefited from doing both, it surely is an entertaining ride. The story alone puts you in awe. You'll be rubbing your eyes in disbelief when you see what this real-life person got himself into and out-of, how the government took part in all this and how much money was involved in all of these operations.
Tom Cruise sells it all. Though better looking than the real man, he is the perfect guy to make you believe that he could actually pull these things of. He also gives Barry all of his charm, making you forget that this is a man who helped one of the most dangerous drug cartels gain power. Director Doug Liman has worked with Cruise on "Edge of Tomorrow" before - an immensely entertaining sci-fi action film - and he proves once again that these two are a great duo. His quick and restless directing style matches perfectly with Cruise's high energy. The movie never really slows down, and even during dialogue scenes, the camera never stays in a still shot for long. Ironically so, this fast-pace makes the film feels a little longer than it is. Not because it's boring, but because so much happens that you can't help but wonder how much longer this guy actually could get away with it. An actual problem of the movie's tempo however is that it never takes the time to really explore the personal drama of Barry Seal's story. The elements concerning his family life seem more like sprinkles across the film rather than actual side-plots. As a result, the film doesn't have the emotional depth it could have.
Nonetheless, "American Made" is a clever and cool-looking bio-pic with a strong leading performance by Tom Cruise. With its fresh directing style, as well as a talented supporting cast (including underrated chameleon Domhnall Gleeson and a convincing Mauricio Mejía who took on the role of Escobar for the third time), it is as enjoyable as it is intriguing. Surely a good time!

For Fans Of:
Lord of War (2005)
The Infiltrator (2016)
Blow (2001)
American Gangster (2007)
Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
The Iceman (2012)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

ATOMIC BLONDE - Movie Review

Title: Atomic Blonde
Running Time: 115 min
Director: David Leitch
Writers: Kurt Johnstad
Starring: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, John Goodman, Toby Jones, Sofia Boutella

Review:

In the last couple of years, Hollywood has taken a few large steps towards gender equality when it comes to prominent blockbuster roles. After "The Hunger Games", we got two female-led Star Wars movies, Scarlett Johansson as an ass-kicking cyborg and "Wonder Women" topped the box office. Now, Charlize Theron, who has proven her affinity for action (and cars?) with "Mad Max: Fury Road" and  "Fate of the Furious", gets her shot at a bad-ass leading lady. She's paired with stuntman-turned-director David Leitch, who is heavily involved in the "John Wick" franchise.
Surprisingly so, "Atomic Blonde" is not as action focused as the ad campaigns might have made you believe. Instead, it really goes into spy film territory, with shady characters, different agencies interfering with each other and multiple double crosses. Unfortunately, this part of the story isn't the movie's strong suit. Although the premise seems simple (once more the plot revolves around a list containing agents' identities - as previously seen in "Skyfall", "Mission Impossible" and many others), Kurt Johnstad's script sometimes gets convoluted. There is a lot happening between the different parties involved. And while it is not that hard to follow their actions, their motivations stay unclear. Thus, the conversations between the different players don't hold as much weight as they need to keep you fully engaged. To me, it was hard to put a finger on the screenplay's exact problem. Maybe it just tried to be too clever for its own good. But too often I found myself hoping for the conversations to wrap up, so that another action set-piece could kick off. Because when the action hits, it is absolutely fantastic.
David Leitch sure knows how to stage, choreograph and shoot fight scenes. Every time our main character goes into combat mode, it is a complete blast. Especially during the finale of the film, the film makers present you a fight sequence that puts you in awe. In an incredible long-take, Charlize Theron takes on group of hitmen that she beats, kicks and shoots through an entire building. Not only is most of the action in frame, but it is rough, blunt and realistic. No punches are pulled, and there were audible gasps in the audience during the scene. It might be one of my favorite fist fights in American cinema.
Additionally, the film has a great visual style. With its bright green, pink and blue lighting, it often has a very cool neon look. Also, it uses rousing tunes of the German new wave and other music of the time, to really give you that late 80's Berlin vibe. The editing is on point as well. This film simply looks damn awesome.
However, all this makes it just all the more upsetting, that the story itself can't completely grab you. The movie could have easily been 20 minutes shorter. I really hope the film makers get to make a sequel, where they can shift the focus to the action. Because this movie actually had the potential to be absolutely dope. It's still worth watching on a movie night with your friends though, be it just for the fight scenes.

For Fans Of:
Spectre (2015)
Skyfall (2012)
TRON: Legacy (2010)
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)
Stereo (2014)
Unknown (2011)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

THE DARK TOWER - Movie Review

Title: The Dark Tower
Running Time: 95 min
Director: Nikolaj Arcel
Writers: Nikolaj Arcel, Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Thomas Jensen
Starring: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor

Review:

Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag. "The Green Mile", "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Shining" are considered to be some of the best movies ever made. "Maximum Overdrive", "Sleepwalker" and "Thinner" ...not so much. It seems that King's enthralling source material is not a guarantor for a good film. So when it was announced that his beloved eight book epic "The Dark Tower" was being adapted for the big screen, people were rather cautious in their excitement. But how exactly does the movie version of this dark sci-fi fantasy action western hold up?
"The Dark Tower" is a cool and fun summer movie that just misses the opportunity to be a great one. There is a lot to like about this film: First of all, it has a slick and stylistic look to it. The color schemes, the visual effects, the set-design, the costumes. They all help establishing this fantastical and mysterious world that you can immediately buy into. As a result, there is no need for too much exposition. Instead, you find out and get curious about this world the same way Tom Taylor's character does. The young actor makes Jake relatable enough to be the audience's way into the story, without making the character too bland. Along side him is Idris Elba who is as brilliant as ever. The 44-year-old Brit has an on-screen presence of a true movie star and it was about time that he got the chance to step further into the spotlight. Hollywood really needs to utilize his talent more, as the actor can sell drama and action with the greatest of ease (check out Luther to see him shine completely). And when he's in action, it looks pretty bad-ass. Re-loading in high-speed, curving bullets, shooting in mid-air. The use of a revolver has rarely looked so cool. It's pretty rad! In addition, the film doesn't only have some great humor placed at points, but it also goes to some pretty dark places too.
Unfortunately however, the film doesn't take enough time with its more dramatic moments and the consequential personal development of its characters. Conversations are cut short and possible inner conflict is resolved too quickly. Therefore the movie sometimes fails to create emotional impact and depth, although not for a lack of opportunities to do so. Furthermore, the movie shies away from getting deep into the very weird parts of its source material and offers a more conventional interpretation of the novels. Establishing the base for a possible franchise within only one-and-a-half hours just might be a little too ambitious, and so the film often feels rushed. The movie's score on Rotten Tomatoes however is by no means justified. While critics treat it like a horrible film, it is actually quite entertaining. It is a shame really. Because the general criticism of "not getting enough" often means that there was a good amount of awesomeness in a film, that made people wish for more. The independent studio that produced this movie, Media Rights Capital (MRC), has a great philosophy when it comes to making films. In order to be able to take risks, they keep their film's budgets at a minimum. "The Dark Tower" for example cost about a quarter of the production of  "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2". Therefore the studio does not need to have huge financial successes. In my opinion, this is an approach that should be rewarded, as it gives us the opportunity to get more original content in between all of those big Hollywood franchises. So if you just want to have a little fun at the movies and tickets are at a discount, go check out this film! I would love to see what they could do in a sequel.

For Fans Of:
Book of Eli (2010)
Solomon Kane (2009)
Wanted (2008)
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES - Movie Review

Title: War for the Planet of the Apes
Running Time: 140 min
Director: Matt Reeves
Writer: Mark Bomback, Matt Reeves
Starring: Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Karin Konoval, Terry Notary, Toby Kebbell

Review:

Reboots, remakes and prequels of prestigious films often miss the mark. "Star Wars", "The Hobbit", "Total Recall" and most recently "Ben Hur" all failed to really satisfy the general public. The more beloved the original, the harder it gets. Somehow however, 20th Century Fox managed to take the absolute sci-fi classic "Planet of the Apes" and re-imagine its origins in a way that struck a chord with audiences and critics alike. In addition to great story telling, the first two installments enthralled viewers with astonishing visuals. Instead of actors in chimp masks, we got state-of-the-art motion capture technology. Half of the cast was digitally transformed into incredibly realistic looking apes with none other than Andy Serkis, the godfather of motion capture performance, leading the way. The actor who rose to fame through his portrayal of Gollum gave the leading ape Caeser a sense of sincerity and humanity that got everyone invested in this chimpanzee's story-line. Now, the third chapter of this new franchise hits theaters and his journey comes to a final conclusion.
With "War for the Planet of the Apes" this prequel series does not only become one of the greatest of all-time. It also makes it a perfect trilogy with three equally amazing movies that can each stand on their own while simultaneously creating a well-rounded overall story arc. We open with written text recapping the first two installments and filling in the time gap between this film and the last one. It almost has a Star Wars opening crawl feel to it, but with a much darker tint Then, we get images that are heavily inspired by great anti-war classics like "Apocalypse Now" and "Full Metal Jacket", setting the tone for what's to come. When we meet Caeser he is still a strong leader, but you can tell that the struggles of yesteryear have left their mark on him. His mind seems raddled, his body exhausted, and he is haunted by the ghosts of the past. As the film goes on Caeser has to battle his inner demons  and answer the questions of whether he wants or even can be the leader his people need him to be. Despite this very personal perspective the film takes, the larger implications of the events in the franchise are not lost. This still is a series that explores universal themes such as humanity, forgiveness, and what one can sacrifice for the greater good.
Andy Serkis gives one of the best performances of his career. The actor who seems to have the most expressive eyes of any other performer working to date, is so good that he elevates everyone around him. The cast members are at their best when they are able to play off of him.  A recognition of his abilities by the Academy of Motion Pictures is long overdue. Every wrinkle of his face tells you something about his character.
The face, of course, is a computer generated chimpanzee face. But is it really? By now the effects have become so outrageously marvelous that the difference is less than marginal. Especially when the orang-utan Maurice is on screen it is almost impossible to comprehend that what you are watching is not the real-deal. In addition to its outstanding visual effects, the film also has gorgeous cinematography and set design. This really is one of the best looking movies of the year.
Overall, it is also one of these rare films that transcend genre. Its sci-fi, drama, anti-war, thriller, action and post-apocalyptic elements are so well balanced that it is hard to pigeonhole this movie. It is also a reason why this series so great. They even find time for some humor through the addition of Bad Ape (a new character portrayed by a fantastic Steve Zahn).
"War for the Planet of the Apes" really is a perfect conclusion for this mature blockbuster movie franchise that might just be the best trilogy of this decade. If you are a fan of the first two installments, you will absolutely love this film. But even other viewers should definitely check this film out, because it is simply an amazing movie. Hopefully, it will manage to overcome the prejudice against visual effects heavy blockbusters and be a strong contender at next year's Oscars.

For Fans Of:
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Gandhi (1982)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

DUNKIRK - Movie Review

Title: Dunkirk
Running Time: 106 min
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Hardy, Mark Rylance, Aneurin Barnard, Kenneth Brannagh, Cillian Murphy, Harry Styles, Jack Lowden, Tom Glynn-Carney, Barry Keogahn, James D'Arcy

Review:

Since the turn of the millennium, Christopher Nolan has established himself as one of the most renowned directors of our time. Next to his critically and commercially successful Batman trilogy, he has put audiences in awe with mind-bending and sophisticated movies such as "Memento", "The Prestige", "Inception" and "Interstellar". Nolan movies are an event, and whether they like the film or not, people sure love to discuss and talk about their execution and construction. But what happens when a director that is so well-known for his high-concept fiction tackles an historical drama?
Well, with "Dunkirk" Christopher Nolan has once again created a unique cinematic experience, albeit for different reasons than people have come to expect. This is a true story. There is no big twist, no philosophical exploration of our perception of reality and basically no room for interpretation. But Nolan still sets this film apart from other war movies through the way he chooses to tell the story. First of all, there is no real main character, and instead we follow different people at different points during this historic evacuation.We also don't get any kind of backstory for them. This is mostly due to the fact that (especially in the first half) there is extremely little dialogue. A fact that is especially interesting considering that one of the biggest points of criticism concerning Nolan's past work was his extensive use of expositional dialogue. It does not seem however as if this was a response to critics, but rather a deliberate film making choice. By removing the personal perspective from the film, the event itself gains center stage. Imagine watching just the finale of "Titanic" without having seen Rose and Jack before. It creates an atmosphere with an emotional coldness to it, that at the same gives the film a sense of objective realism. Therefore, the film truly becomes a snapshot in time.
By now I have mostly defined this movie by the things it doesn't have, so let's get into the things it does. Because from a technical standpoint, this film is an absolutely masterful piece of cinema. For one, the areal shots of the beach and the ocean are breathtaking. Nolan captures the landscape in a way that gives this yawning void a bittersweet beauty. As though this gorgeous emptiness was already an in-between state of life and death. At other points, he creates a claustrophobic atmosphere that immediately builds up the tension. He taps right into the human fear of drowning or being trapped. Furthermore, he stages most of the action in camera with practical effects making them real and impactful. It should be noted here that this film works without a bunch of gory scenes and manages to display the horrors of war without spilling a lot of on-screen blood.
Something that is rarely talked about in films, the sound design, is another element that contributes to the total immersion of the audience. When bombs drop you feel it, when shots fire you flinch, and when fighter jets nosedive out of the sky, their screech makes the hair on your neck stand on end. Hans Zimmer underscores this with an oppressive atmospheric soundtrack that refrains from large melodic movement. Lastly, Nolan interconnects the three perspectives of the event in a clever way that at some points cements the feeling of inescapability.
"Dunkirk" is a film that has the capability of completely sucking its audience in. It does however ask you to be emotional invested simply because of what happens, and not because of who it happens to. So if you are a viewer who needs a personal connection with a main character to really get immersed in a story, you might not get the same experience as others. And while Nolan tries to make the film at least a little more personal during the last ten minutes, it does not work 100%. But despite this debatable point concerning the writing, Christopher Nolan has once again proven that he is a masterclass film maker when it comes to directing. An actual Dunkirk veteran was moved to tears during a screening of this movie, because he felt like he was there again. Whether you want to learn more about the events of WWII or about the artistry of cinema itself, "Dunkirk" is worth watching. Worth watching on a big screen. A definite recommendation.

For Fans Of:
The Revenant (2015)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Impossible (2012)
Interstellar (2014)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

PS.: To all the "One Direction" haters, I am sorry to inform you that Harry Styles actually did a good job in this film.

BABY DRIVER - Movie Review

Title: Baby Driver
Running Time: 113 min
Director: Edgar Wright
Writer: Edgar Wright
Starring: Ansel Elgort, Lily James, Kevin Spacey, Jon Hamm,  Jamie Foxx, Eiza González, Jon Bernthal, CJ Jones

Review:
There are only a few directors who can leave a fingerprint as unique as Edgar Wright. The creator of "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" and the so-called "Cornetto-Trilogy" (including "Shaun of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz" and "The World's End") has made a name for himself by putting certain trademark elements into almost all of his films. Firstly, he puts everyday normal people into outrageous scenarios. Not only does this create humor, but Wright actually uses these ludicrous events to support his characters' personal growth. Secondly, he has a slick and inventive way of editing as well as framing his scenes. Thus, he can create comedy, excitement and style almost completely independent from the words in his script. And lastly, Wright fills his films with a lot of details, foreshadowing and pop-culture references, so that you can pick up something new every-time you rewatch it.
By now, it has been four years since the director brought his ideas to the big screen. After he left Marvel's "Ant-Man" project very publicly, the world was wondering what this film-maker would come up with next. "Baby Driver" is the answer to that question. And a damn great one too. Although it isn't as distinctly Edgar-Wright-ish as you might expect.
The movie revolves around Baby, a young getaway driver who has had an accident as a child that left him with a tinnitus. To drown out the squeak in his ear, he listens to music, an art-form that has always played a central part in his life. For Wright's standards the basic plot is unconventionally conventional: Boy is in the bad guy business, boy meets girl, boy wants to get out of the bad guy business to drive off into the sunset with girl, boy has to do one last job. So far so simple. It is a classic Hollywood tale. Wright however gives it enough little twists and turns to make it feel like a fresh homage rather than a resort to cliché. But what actually truly elevates this story is the musical element mentioned above:
The soundtrack consists almost exclusively of licensed pieces of music and features fantastic songs from Queen's "Brighton Rock" all the way to a cover version of "Tequila". It is much more than a great listen, though. While in other films the action is simply accompanied by the music, here, it is the other way around. The music dictates the action. Yes, everything that happens in "Baby Driver" is in perfect sync with the songs you hear. The stunts, the driving, the gunshots, even the beeping of ATMs in the background. Whether it is putting down a coffee cup or tapping someone on the shoulder. Everything fits the rhythm. You know these moments you sometimes have, when you walk through the streets with your headphones on, when you imagine this was the soundtrack to your life? That's what this movie is all about. But it's more than just a gimmick. Often times it is subtle enough that it isn't too on the nose (although you never not notice it), and moreover, it serves the purpose of reflecting the protagonists view of the world. When he has to restart a song in the middle of the action, you know that this is not going how he had planned. It's an ingenious character moment.
By itself, this whole element would already make an entertaining motion picture. If you then take a look at the cast, the entire film steps up its game even further. Everyone seems like they had a blast on set. Oscar-Winners Jamie Foxx and Kevin Spacey are excellent (it becomes clear Spacey has perfected his typical arrogant and powerful mastermind by now), but also Jon Hamm gives his character an unexpected depth through his performance. And then of course there is our leading man, Ansel Elgort, who is as charismatic as he ever was. He has to carry most of the film and fulfills his task masterfully. You believe his passion, his coolness and his pain. While I am curious to see what Alden Ehrenreich has to offer, I immediately thought it to be a shame that Elgort didn't get the role of young Han Solo as soon as I saw the first 6 minutes of "Baby Driver".
The whole film is an exhilarating ride that you can appreciate more and more every time you watch it. This movie has action, humor, romance and maybe the greatest car chase sequences of the decade. Edgar Wright proves that he can deliver an endlessly creative product even when he plays around with a classic Hollywood formula. Meticulously crafted, brilliantly edited and perfectly cast, this music-video-motion-picture-hybrid is one of the best films of the summer. Buy the ticket and take your friends. You won't regret it.

For Fans Of:
Hot Fuzz (2007)
RocknRolla (2008)
The Town (2010)
The Italian Job (1969/2003)
Victoria (2015)
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)
Fast Five (2011)

Click Here To Watch Traier!

SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING - Movie Review

Title: Spider-Man: Homecoming
Running Time: 133 min
Director: Jon Watts
Writers: Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Jon Watts, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers
Starring: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey Jr., Marisa Tomei, John Favreau, Jacob Balaton

Review:
Cinematically speaking, Spider-Man has had a bit of a rough road for the past decade. After Sam Raimi's first two incarnations of the web-slinger soared at the box office, the series did a huge nosedive with a franchise killing third installment. "Batman & Robin" - Style. But Sony didn't wait long to reboot the series and cranked out two brand-new films, this time with Andrew Garfield in the Spidey suit. The fans however neither liked seeing the all too familiar origin play out the same way again. Nor did they appreciate the convoluted story-line that was very clearly just geared towards fast-tracking an extended universe. So when the films disappointed critics and audiences alike, Sony turned to the mother ship of comic book franchises: Marvel Studios. Yes, the Spider-Man found a new home in the MCU. And although the general public seemed hesitant to get excited about yet another take on the wall-crawler, most people were wooed when they first saw Tom Holland in costume and in action in "Captain America: Civil War". So can "Spider-Man: Homecoming" successfully build on that momentum? Or is the time for Spidey solo movies well and truly over?
It certainly is not! Marvel Studios have proven their sure instinct for their audiences taste once more, because Spider-Man incarnation feels fresher than ever. The film-makers skipped the origin story and  jumped right into Spider-Man's life after the events of "Captain America: Civil War" (awesomely recapped through a "Spidey Blog"). Although the character is send back to high school for the third time in a row, this time the setting is actually part of the story. Instead of having a 30-year-old play a Spider-Man that just happens to also go to school sometimes, Tom Holland really looks the age. Furthermore, Peter Parker actually has to deal with the problems a teenager with superpowers might have. This makes the whole film more personal, something that the comics were always about. Because unlike the Avengers, Spidey is not the one that saves the world from total destruction or fights intergalactic wars. He is a street-level hero. It is not for nothing that they call him the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Marvel Studios understands this, and instead of putting him against some big flashy inherently evil villain, they chose The Vulture: A regular in the comics, that the film-makers made into an equally "small scale" counterpart, with an unexpected connection to Peter. In addition they gave him an origin that does not online tie into the MCU, but also kind of expands it.
But of course we can't talk about the world-famous web-slinger, without also talking about the man who plays him. Because what elevates the film even further is Tom Holland's excellent performance. It is a match made in heaven, as Holland nails both, the Peter Parker and the Spider-Man side of the character. He simply IS the slightly awkward but witty super-hero and to me his casting is almost on a Micheal-J.-Fox-in-Back-To-The-Future-Level kind of perfection. Not only does he hold his own opposite of Robert Downey Jr. (who is much less in this film than I had feared), but he sells every single emotion. He's cocky, fearful, awkward, frustrated, insecure, fascinated, lovestruck, and fully embarks in the roller coaster of feelings that a teenager has. As a long time fan, it was pure joy to finally see a movie version of this character that seems like he jumped right out of a comic-book.
There is an argument that can be made that Sam Raimi's classic version was a more serious movie with a little more gravitas. And it is true that this incarnation is a little lighter. But with its 80's comedy vibe, well-rounded story and absolutely fantastic lead actor, there is no doubt this Spider-Man film is an immensely entertaining motion picture. It knows exactly why its main character is so appealing and utilizes this to its full potential. A blast for every Marvel fan and an definite must-see for every Spider-Man fan.

For Fans Of:
Spider-Man (2002)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Back to the Future Trilogy (1985-1990)
Chronicle (2012)
Iron-Man (2008)
The Karate Kid (1984)
The Breakfast Club (1985)

Click Here To Watch Traier!

REBIRTH - Netflix Review

 Title: Rebirth
Running Time: 140 min
Director: Karl Mueller
Writer: Karl Mueller
Starring: Fran Kranz, Adam Goldberg, Nicky Whelan, Kat Foster

Review:
Netflix has become bigger and bigger over the last couple of years. So much so, that the streaming service evolved into a production company that constantly delivers new content. Between acclaimed shows like "House of Cards" or Marvel's "Daredevil", you can also find a number of independent films in the Netflix original collection. It only seems appropriate, to pick out one of these productions every now and then, and give them the same review treatment as cinematic releases. First up is Karl Mueller's second directorial outing:
"Rebirth" is a psychological thriller that evolves around the everyman Kyle, a suburban father who works for the social media department of a bank. When he gets a surprise visit from his old college friend Zack, the latter tries to convince him to take part in a wild self-actualization program called Rebirth that is coming up the following weekend. Despite only having these few vague information, Kyle signs up. Soon he enters a bizarre rabbit-hole that seems to lack order, sense and any kind of reasonableness and is more messed up than he initially thought.
The film is certainly an experience. You really get to see the story through Kyle's eyes and thus are just as confused as he is throughout the entire film. Numerous times you will wonder what the hell is going on and will laugh at, be weirded out, or be intrigued by the absurdity of the events. Whether you enjoy this ride or not probably depends on your ability to endure such a cluelessness. Because it does get a little exhausting at times that you don't even seem to get a little bit closer to finding out what is actually going on. But the film manages to pull you back in at a few points. Of course all this confusion calls for a big reveal at the end, and while you'll find the initial explanation of it all a little underwhelming, the film dares to say "but wait, there's more" just a few minutes later. At first I wasn't quite sure if the ending worked for me, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it and the more it kind of creeped me out.
While the social satire the film attempts doesn't entirely work, the film is still fun to watch. In this regard, it especially benefits from Fran Kranz's sympathetic portrayal of Kyle. The 35 year-old actor has given great performances in films like "Cabin in the Woods" or "Much Ado About Nothing" and especially his comedic chops should be utilized much more by Hollywood. Additionally, the film has a cool visual style as it frequently plays around a little with things like the color pallet or long takes.
All in all, "Rebirth" is certainly not a perfect film, but entertains you well enough. Maybe not a film for watching alone, but I do recommend it for a movie night with a few friends. Because despite its flaws, it sure has the potential to start up a conversation.

For Fans Of:
The Game (1997)
Fight Club (1999)
Legacy (2010)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

WONDER WOMAN - Movie Review

Title: Wonder Woman

Running Time: 141 min

Director: Patty Jenkins

Writer: Allan Heinberg

Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, David Thewlis, Robyn Wright, Connie Nielsen, Danny Huston, Elena Anaya

Review:
After Christopher Nolan had finished up his critically acclaimed "Dark Knight Trilogy", Warner Bros decided they want to catch up with Marvel Studios and start their very own cinematic DC Extended Universe. The first entry, "Green Lantern", was such a flop that they immediately removed it from the canon. "Man of Steel" turned out to be more "'Meh' of Steel", and in 2016 both "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" as well as "Suicide Squad" completely crashed and burned. As these films became pinnacles of what is wrong with today's movie industry, the pressure on the "Wonder Women" film became bigger and bigger. So is this the motion picture experience that can save the DCEU? Or the final nail in this franchise's coffin?

Well, the executives at Warner Bros Studios can surely breath a sigh of relieve, because "Wonder Woman" is not only the best film in the DCEU to date, it is also an absolutely fantastic superhero movie in general. In a time, where many different studios constantly try to one-up each other by cranking out multiple films a year, it gets harder and harder for a movie to stand out from the crowd. And yet, "Wonder Woman" does, for multiple reasons:
First of all, this is a film that completely stands on its own, which is unfortunately unusual for today's superhero flicks. There is no cameo or set-up of another DC character. There isn't even a post-credit scene. Therefore the filmmakers were able to take their time with the development and emotional journey of their main character. As a result, the movie feels well-rounded, and the dramatic moments had enough set-up, so that they really pay off. This is also where the great casting comes in. Gal Gadot shines as the iconic heroine. Her layered performance is miles away from what she offered in "Batman v Superman". She sells both, the dramatic part as well as the action, and shows us that naivity and strength are not contradicting character traits. Thus, her portrayal gives Diana Prince the humanity the audience needs to connect to an Amazonian Goddess. Her love interest is played by Chris Pine, who is more charismatic than he has ever been. Even though he always brings his trademark charm to a film, his comedic timing as well as his chemistry with Gadot are perfect in this movie.
And while we are already on the topic of men and women interacting, I should probably address the elephant in the room. Because "Wonder Woman" is the first female led superhero movie since Rob Bowman's horrible incarnation of Elektra 12 years ago. So in addition of having to save the DCEU, the future of women in film rested on this movie's shoulders as well. Fortunately, "Wonder Woman" does it exactly right. Other self-proclaimed feminist movies have empowered their main characters by dumbing down the men around them, which only leaves the sour taste of the idea that women can only be strong when men are weak. But in this film our heroine exhibits strength despite the fact that she is surrounded by highly competent men. Even though she is obviously superior when it comes to her abilities, they are always true equals that fight side by side. And. The. Fighting. Is. Epic!
Yes, as soon as the first big action set-piece on the beach of Themyscira begins, you know that badassary knows no gender. The amazingly choreographed and beautifully shot battle of Amazons vs German Soldiers leaves you in awe. And it is not the only fighting sequence to give you goosebumps. The great thing about the action scenes in this film is also that they have a purpose for the character growth of Diana. After every battle, she has learned something new about herself or the world she lives in, and so there is always an emotional charge to these scenes that truly engages you.
Having the film take place during World War I of course adds to the stakes, but despite the darkness that comes with the setting, the film is incredibly uplifting. Because unlike many of her male counterparts nowadays, Wonder Woman is not the typical brooding cynic of the postmodern era. She has a purity to her character that makes her the same beacon of hope that Superman used to be in the late seventies. Her innocent look at the world is something an embittered society as ours today could really use more of. This might also be, why this movie has already become a world-wide phenomenon.
It might not be completely flawless (one could argue about the CGI heavy showdown or the sporadically weird performance of Danny Huston), but it is still an outstanding blockbuster with a whole lot of heart. This western superheroine that is played by an Israeli actress is someone we all, regardless of gender or race, can look up to. Buy your ticket now!

For Fans of:
Superman: The Movie (1978)
Gladiator (2000)
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Spider-Man (2002)
Thor (2011)
Iron Man (2008)

Click Here To Watch The Trailer!

KING ARTHUR - Movie Review

Title: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Running Time: 126 min

Director: Guy Ritchie

Writer: Joby Harold, Guy Ritchie, Lionel Wigram

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Djimon Honsou, Aidan Gillen, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Eric Bana

Review:

For ten years Guy Ritchie had been known for making slick British crime-comedies. Then in 2007, Warner Bros chose him to helm their big budget re-imagining of the world's most famous detective, Sherlock Holmes. People were curious how Ritchie's unique playful visual style would translate to a period piece. The answer was: Very well. "Sherlock Holmes" became a huge success and grossed over five times of its production budget. No wonder then, that Warner Bros. green-lit a sequel without hesitation and has now given the man another classic literature hero to play around with. But will the director be able to pull off another Holmes-like hit? Or did Warner Bros make an elementary mistake?
"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" is an exhilarating fun blockbuster that has Guy Ritchie's fingerprints all over it. It is, as you'd except, a more rugged version of the tale. Especially in the first third Arthur and his companions are street smart small-time gangsters that could have easily walked into any scene of "RocknRolla". It does not do the movie any harm however. On the contrary, it takes away some of the pathos that could have made this kind of film too cheesy.
Furthermore, Ritchie's visceral editing gives the movie a fast pace that makes it entertaining for its entire two-hours run-time. He also makes use of his trademark montage sequences more than once, therefore resolving certain plot elements unconventionally quickly. It's a little weird at first and at some points a deeper exploration could have been quite interesting. But again this stylistic choice is conducive to the avoidance of boredom.
Admittedly, such an up-tempo film always runs the risk of failing to create emotional depth. Luckily enough, Charlie Hunnam gives a vigorous performance as our leading man, and Arthur might be his most charming cinematic appearance yet. He is able to have fun with the role without ever disrespecting it, and it is this balance that makes him so believable. Pit against him is Jude Law, who has rarely given a bad performance in his career and obviously had no intention to do so in this film. Their strong portrayal of these two opposing relatives makes up for the scripts neglect to completely flesh them out and carries the movie nonetheless.
Anyone who saw the trailer however, probably didn't come for the family drama in this picture, but rather for the effect-heavy action. Ritchie throws in a lot of fantastical forces and creatures in the film and is certainly determined to make this a visual spectacle. He is one of the few directors who still knows how to properly utilize slow-motion to its full effect. It is probably a question of personal taste whether you think he crosses the line of over-using it during the final showdown, but in general this film is great just to look at.
"King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" might not be a fantasy masterpiece à la "The Lord of the Rings" but it never strives to be that anyway. It is, at its core, a fun and diverting blockbuster that is more than enjoyable. A fresh take on the tale with Ritchie's playful direction to marvel at. I'd buy the DVD.

For Fans of:
Solomon Kane (2009)
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
Warcraft (2016)
Robin Hood (2010)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2016)
Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!