Reviews

A galactic movie franchise, endless stories yet to discover, this is just another review of the latest debouch of our beloved Star Trek Crew into the local movie theaters.

Start off the text sequence in 3. 2. 1. go!:

"Captain, we're receiving the latest Metascore!"

"On the Screen!"

"It says, the reviews are overall positive, 'Star Trek: Beyond' is a fast and furious action adventure in front of a visually stunning backdrop"

"Are there any complains?"

"The story Sir, it fails to fully enthrall one"

"Elaborate on it!"

"It seems to be too self referential thus following known patterns and therefore lacking sensation and surprises, furthermore it just shallowly swipes over the characters as it's focusing too much on rapid action and leaves many plot related questions in the darkness of a black hole so to speak."

"What about the villain, is he as cool as my archenemy Khan?"

"Meh,Sir, I mean, he has potential but his motives are not really thought through and there are too many question marks concerning his past, at least his name begins with a K."

"Anything that makes this sequel special?"

"Not much but this new female warrior Jaylah is cool and Scotty isn't as annoying a chatterbox as before."

"Your conclusion?"

"It's good Sir, yet nothing awe inspiring except for the beauty of a futuristic setting. The new Director followed J.J Abrams' successful course without completely losing track of what defined the original idea of the series.

"I consider this conclusion logical Sir."

"The Nice Guys" is a very amusing detective story set in the stylish 1970ies with a mischievous detective duo, who has more luck than brains, and a touch of porn and violence.

Ryan Gosling, who played the personification of coolness in "Drive", now shows his humorous side by playing the over-the-hill private investigator Holland March, a single father who doesn't mind looking for people who he knows are already dead just for the sake of earning some money, a laxity that more than once has brought trouble upon him and one of those situations also makes him cross paths with Russell Crowe's character Jackson Healy, a rather moody, professional thug who likes letting his fists speak for himself and who else would be more suitable for the role than the notoriously choleric Russell Crowe?

So together they form a duo as a new case forces them to cooperate and from that moment on they literally stumble upon one trace leading to another and evermore get themselves entangled in the snares of a big political conspiracy which of course surpasses their skills by far and the way in which they nevertheless manage to gain the upper hand gives cause for very comedic moments and memorable lines. The story may be confusing at first but in the end everything adds up convincingly, only the conventional finale is a letdown so to speak.

What, to me, makes the movie stand out is the fact that the duo is actually a trio if you count March's daughter, the very smart, cheeky Holly, superbly played by A. Rice, she plays a very active part in the movie and often demonstrates a higher level of maturity than those two guys together.

I'm very optimistic that this won't be the last case of "The Nice Guys" we'll see.

By a civil war, I understand a brutal conflict between several parties in an urban surrounding over a longer period of time, and this was rather a street fight between a bunch of superhero-friends, who once confronted with the political and moral consequences of their actions, realized that they disagree on certain basic issues and therefore argued it out using their fists and abilities, which was so much fun to watch that I will condone the misleading tag-line.

Especially for a martial arts fan like me, the fantastically choreographed fist fights were the highlight of the movie and the reason why I would like to watch it again on Blu Ray as I found that the 3D technology wasn't developed enough to capture the fast velocity of their movements making them appear slightly jittery. The action scenes were really amazing and didn't seem overlong or bloated.

What I liked about the story is that although it dealt with a lot of characters who all by themselves aspired to be in the spotlight as most of them would ultimately get their own movies like Black Panther for instance, it nevertheless kept a very good balance and followed a clear central theme so that it never felt over-fraught with unnecessary sidelines or was embarrassingly chaotic like "The Amazon Spider-Man 2" for instance which was a catastrophe. So I will excuse certain weaknesses that all Marvel movies seem to have which I will describe as a certain immaturity and incompleteness of the plot without giving away any spoilers. After watching it I always feel like I should read the comics in order to get the full picture. With the very popular German actor Daniel Brühl they also introduced a rather unusual villain who brought a new kind of stereotype into the genre, a very quiet manipulator with a tragic human side. It's also interesting to compare the many parallels of the story to the recent "Batman v. Superman" movie sharing some main ideas concerning the public control of superheroes placing them under the command of a specific political authority which is all inspired by A. Moore's legendary "Watchmen" and in retrospect I find "Captain America 3" executed this ideas far better than Singer managed to do with "Batman v. Superman".

Another great plus are definitely the new recruits of the Avengers team starting with Spiderman and Antman, who are just marvelous and also the Black Panther and The Vision and Scarletwitch are superb and a rather personal compliment goes to - hot, hotter, - Scarlett Johansson who as Black Widow demonstrated her best performance so far.

All in All I find "The First Avenger: Civil War" surpassed it's prequels and also marked a new great highlight of the Marvel cinematic universe.

On behalf of good storytelling and suspense, we, everyone who expected the long awaited confrontation of two of the most iconic superheroes ever, to be a thrilling masterpiece, declare this poorly scripted advertisement for a potentially bigger sequel to come, an epic fail!

Rarely I have been so desperately looking for some relevance and emotional depth like it was the case while watching this muddled mess of a movie and it's so sad because it had everything a good action movie needs and yet the end result is boring for the most part.

Zack Snyder made one of my favorite movies of all times which is "Watchmen", however, he also did "Sucker Punch" which despite it's visual abundance and sex-appeal bored me to hell, and "Batman v. Superman" is somewhere between those two.

I still hold high regards for Zack Snyder as director for his ability to create powerful imagery that sticks to your mind, but he seems not to care much for his characters and plot development, it all looks so cool and the action is bombastic, but in the end it all feels so shallow and redundant.

Ben Affleck proved all the haters whiny naggers, he was superb as Batman! The other cast was fine too, although I consider Eisenberg's interpretation of Lex Luthor as too nerdy and psychotic which doesn't live up to the charismatic image of Luthor I got from the cartoons and comics. Amy Adams is again miscast for Lois Lane and Gal Gadot is a hot Wonder Woman but feels completely misplaced in this movie lacking any sort of background story, another example of how they introduce story arcs to leave them open for further installments to continue them, with the consequences that "Batman v. Superman" feels unfinished, incomplete, a sole introduction to a "cinematic Universe" yet to enter the screens, in other words, it's an overlong advertisement for the franchise rather than being a movie, a story on it's own.

I'm really disappointed.

"Deadpool" is the same-old exchangeable Marvel happy-go-lightly formula wrapped into a very naughty, very black-humored, often cynical, violent and sexually loaded package that might appear fresh and shocking at first glance, but, once you've unpacked it, there is not much left than just a slight feeling that you've just seen nothing more than solely a bizarre persiflage of a good superhero-movie and not just that, you also discover that deep down, "Deadpool" is a rather naive story about true love, acceptance and the unwillingness to grow up.

The main hero is such a chatterbox that he not only won't shut up even when a bullet pierces him another b***hole, he also speaks directly to us beyond the screen on a kind of meta level: this together with his ability to fully regenerate his body when injured really takes away something that every unforgettable movie should have which is, suspense.

Sure, many lines are very funny and worthy to remember and some of the action scenes really kick a**; the somewhat kinky erotic dimension brought in by M. Baccarin, playing a role reminiscent of her iconic appearance in the series "Firefly"; all this combined make the movie entertaining nonetheless, I just wished the plot itself would have been as provocative and crazy as the way it was presented to us.

This movie has such a strong pulling effect that the moment it starts you feel like physically dragged into the woods accompanying the hero on his long, agonizing way to find the man who hideously killed his son.

The eye of the beholder or more precisely, the camera is smoothly flowing around the characters and often comes so close to them that the lens gets fogged by their breath, it's almost "pornographic" in terms of how close the director wants to show us everything so that you feel the urge to look away, the blood, the sweat, it's literally palpable, the pain the hero must have sustained while being lacerated by a huge bear you're able to feel on your own skin, it's simply awe-inspiring. Sometimes it appears as if there are no cuts like it's happening in real time, extraordinary!

Inarritu once again proved that he is a visionary cinematographer and a true artist on par with Terrence Malick just (luckily) more grounded in linear story telling, the style never overlaps the substance like it was the case with Malick's "Tree of Life" where you could get lost in imagery. Sure the story itself is rather simple, it's about survival and revenge, more or less typical blockbuster themes,"The Revenant" could easily have turned into a second "Rambo" or Liam Neeson fighting wolves in the wilderness, yet it became an ambitious and authentic epos with a kind of documentary and simultaneously artistic approach and a pulsating score.

I'm not sure whether all this panting and screaming by DiCaprio is more challenging and therefore worthier of an Oscar than let's say his brilliant performance of a complex character like Howard Hughes in "Aviator" for example which means that he should already have gotten one as he is a fabulous actor, Tom Hardy as his treacherous antagonist played a slightly more diverse character and was slightly more interesting so that he definitely should get the Oscar for the Best Supporting Role.

"The Revenant" playing in a snow covered wilderness will make you shiver with cold for exactly the right reasons as it is a masterpiece.

When the first part of Star Wars (now referred to as Episode IV) came to the movie theaters back in the late 1970ies, George Lucas, the creator, rather went on holiday with his buddy Steven Spielberg than attending the premiere of his movie expecting this B-movie inspired Sci-FI Western to be a failure and yet it became possibly the most successful movie franchise in history giving millions of viewers worldwide a form of light escapism which rarely another series managed to accomplish; and now roughly 40 years later, we have a whole different situation, the movie companies invested so much money into this and the fan expectations are so high that failure is simply not an option so whatever fresh, innovative, bold ideas on part of young, aspiring script authors were submitted for Episode VII, obviously everything was abandoned as too risky for a potential success, therefore they hired the same old script author L. Kasdan not to adequately continue the saga but to simply retell it for a new generation of movie goers in such a way that the old fans won't feel excluded and J.J. Abrams made sure the cast is young and energetic and the dialogues not so cheesy like in G. Lukas' times.

The result is a fastidious clinging to main plot lines of Episode IV our heroes have to pass in order to be more or less at the same endpoint as their predecessors. Making the new version of Luke Skywalker female is not hiding how closely she is portrayed after Luke having no real background story whatsoever leaving much to tell for further installments emphasizing the incomplete nature of Episode VII. As much as Kylo would like to become the new Darth Vader, in the end he is just a whiny mother's boy, such a disappointment. The fact alone that they felt the need for a Darth Vader rip-off is a sacrilege in my eyes, instead it would have been more honest to just let Vader clone or resurrect otherwise than just replace him with a wannabe cult figure. Some of the CGI aliens look like they come right from Hogwarts. J. Boyega as Finn is the only new archetype of character having no old role model. And the new version of R2D2, the cute BB-8 is almost stealing the show to everyone and he is just a beeping ball with a head! All the old characters like Han Solo or C3PO seemingly pop up out of nothing and they are really holding the story kept into a firm nostalgia corsage. Especially this entire annoying relational entanglements in the sense of who is the grandfather or mother or cousin of whom is on very trivial dramedy level.

Where the prequels used to be all shiny and imaginative and epic in terms of settings and abundance, Episode VII is just open, barren deserts, empty space and forsaken forests, gray and monotonous with cheap scenery and one or two solid space battles and a weak melee fight.

I really liked the beginning of this movie up until I realized this dog is just chasing after his own tail and we even applaud it since failure is not an option.

Craig's fourth assignment as 007 more than the previous ones conveys a certain retro touch of the first Bond movies as if the authors made a cycle from "Casino Royal" where Bond was reinterpreted, to finally becoming his old self which unfortunately implies that they kind of drove the Aston Martin against the wall and urgently should be looking for a new, more motivated Bond actor to again refresh the franchise.

"Spectre" is an atmospherically dense, narrative-driven spy thriller with so scarce action scenes that it doesn't really qualify as a true action movie which in itself would not be a big problem if the story had more profoundness and originality (or sex) so that it drags a bit towards the ending. What made it still entertaining for me were the interesting characters beginning with M. Bellucci as an incredibly sensual widow to the bulky D. Bautista up to a very vicious Blofeld played by a rather under-challenged C. Waltz.

The love story to the bond girl feels authentic albeit somewhat chilly at first

My personal highlights were the opening in Mexico and an unforgettable torture scene, I just wished they would have put more effort into plot development, yet it's still enjoyable especially for Bond fans

M.I. 5 is as original as Hangover 2, the story is predictable and the stunts are laughably over-the-top, however it's so fast paced that you just don't have enough time to realize it as Ethan Hunt jumps from city to city within minutes and the really exciting espionage work like getting information or managing to hide from the CIA without any help is done in secret and is not explained at all, we're just left to accept that Ethan Hunt can break into every facility (by just landing on the property with parachutes for example), that he somehow possesses the best equipment and can do whatever he wants.

The villain is like the previous one, just a decal of a villain, no psychological depth whatsoever.

The showdown is just a letdown!

What saved this movie for me was R. Ferguson as the double agent Ilsa Faust because she was as skilled and smart as Ethan and she was the actual impetus of the movie, she almost stole him the show, a very multi-layered, heroic female character which is rare in such movies.

I really don't want to see another "Fast & Furious" version of Mission: Impossible, how about some seriousness for a change.

Where other Marvel movies were humorous where they should have been serious or silly where they should have been humorous, Ant-Man was just funny for the most part and absorbed me into a fantastically imaginative, tiny big world from the perspective of ants.

All the actors were likable and committed. Paul Rudd was just perfect for the main role, a completely down-to-earth guy with a very good sense for comical timing. Michael Douglas as Dr. Pym had a huge presence as usual and E. Lilly as his daughter (whom I thought to be Jessica Biel up until the end credits although I loved Lilly in 'Lost' - "Hey man, he doesn't even know the actors' names, he is not qualified to write a review") was just gorgeous and also smart and strong and therefore very emancipated. For one of the best comical moments (albeit some suspiciously silly moments too), the robber trio B. Cannavale, D. Dastmalchian and T.I as Paxton, Kurt and Dave ("The Three Marvel Stooges") was elemental. One great compliment deserves young Abby R. Fortson as Scott's little daughter, she was sooooo sweeet and really could act! Finally, there is the main antagonist C. Stoll as Yellowjacket, a rather whiny antagonist but towards the end, he developed to a worthy opponent.

And for all the Marvel nerds: Yes there were some references to the Avengers (which I found rather distracting) and an interesting intermezzo with Falcon, but beware, there were no fancy Air Battleships and no Armageddon scenario with inter-dimensional wormholes, the movie was more a classical heist adventure peppered with a more or less convincing father-daughter conflict and it derived it's entertainment value not from extraordinary action scenes (which were considerably rare) but most of all from the marvelous sensation of being shrunken and especially from it's often subtle, often child-friendly sense of humor. It also conveyed a unique atmosphere similar to the 50's pulp monster movies, it had a nice retro touch, a bit like the first Captain America installment

Ant-Man is the best comedy of all the Marvel superhero movies.

After a feeble opening, the movie slowly turns into a suspenseful cat-and-mouse game (the people are the mouse in this game) until it ends with a fulminate dinosaur smack-down.

When you're impatiently waiting for the disaster to happen so that finally the dinosaurs can take over the park and by that drive the plot into a basic run-for-your-life theme than it's a clear sign that all the blabbering in between is just an unexciting postponement of the inevitable carnage that follows and therefore just redundant.

This sequel is so uncreative that it's actually a remake spiced with more violent horror elements and the latest 3D technology.

The characters are all fulfilling stereotypical roles, there is not one really funny line, the only halfway unpredictable behavior comes from the dinosaurs, nevertheless the movie relies on the sensationalism of the audience who much like the visitors of the park are seemingly satisfied with the premise: "It's roaring, it's big so it gotta be good!"

What really intrigued me were the new dinosaur villain, the sea monster and the nasty pterosaurs which caused some thrilling incidents.

4/5 pts. for action and effects. 2/5 pts. for story, inventiveness and drama/fun. total rating: 6 pts.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" is a one big, breathtaking, lunatic car chase through a surreal looking Australian desert;

it's mad, it's madder, it's f*ckn Mad Max!

George Miller surpassed himself 30 years after he had let Mel Gibson fight in the Thunderdome for survival and he reclaimed the very essence of the franchise which is furious Speed, violence, freaky characters as well as rough, handmade action scenes with extraordinary vehicles and amidst all this accelerated ferocity, he still found one or two quiet moments for character development, narrative depth, and beautiful, even poetical imagery.

Tom Hardy is an excellent replacement for Mel Gibson who would be too old for the role by now and Charlize Theron gives a worthy female counterpart as "Furiosa"; she is smart and strong and not the only woman in this movie, who steps up to the men in a harsh, misogynic, post-apocalyptic wasteland.

The score, the drums, the electric guitars, it's bombastic!

This is how an action movie should feel like!

Spectacular action scenes and sophisticated, interesting super heroes cannot quite make up for the fact that the story entangles itself in too many plot lines so that "Age of Ultron" is a less exciting adventure than its prequel has been.

The balancing act between seriousness and humor doesn't seem to work as smoothly as before and the big love story quickly develops some soap-opera like feeling to it which makes it an additional side line that rather distracts from the main plot than giving more depth to it.

More of a disappointment is unfortunately the main villain too. "Ultron" is supposed to be one of the most dangerous and merciless enemies in the Marvel universe and instead he is too charming too be really frightening, he is still cool but his potential has been wasted.

A positive surprise is "Hawkeye" whose story gets more attention and meaning this time and I really like it that the big final battle takes place in a South-European country for a change.

"Age of Ultron" has all the necessary ingredients for a fantastic blockbuster, however, the fine-tuning is flawed and considering the high expectations it leaves an aftertaste of mediocrity.

A crazy, implausible, over-the-top storyline that is neither original nor particularly intriguing, except for some genre-typical twists, clad in a superb, tailored action-suit with the license to be self-ironic.

Kingsman works as a rather violent "Kick-Ass" version of a James Bond spoof having a slight touch of Austin Powers.

Colin Firth handles his first engagement as action hero surprisingly well since his gallant stiffness matches the character he portrays in the movie, so that all in all he did not need to change much for this role in relation to the previous roles he played; in fact his character only gets really interesting in the moments when he briefly forgets about his good manners and starts wreaking havoc.

His juvenile protégé and spy-in-training "Eggsy" (T. Egorton) is certainly the most (or rather the sole) psychologically complex character in the movie because he is the only one undergoing an inner development from a Hooligan nobody to a Gentleman hero.

However, they both are somewhat overshadowed by the lisping Samuel L. Jackson and this certainly just because of his funny lisping which makes him one of the most bizarre movie villains since "Jaws" in James Bond.

"Gazelle" (Sofia Boutella), the razor-harp woman and bodyguard on his side, entertains as a dangerous mixture of "Cherry Darling" from "Planet Terror" and "Gogo Yubari" from "Kill Bill".

Politically incorrect killing sprees and fast-paced close-combat fighting scenes together with caricatural characters and one or two laughs constitute the fun factor of this movie which might not be enough for a more demanding viewer who has seen tons of movies like this one.

Peter Jackson's self-aggrandizing attempt to bloat a simple children's story to an epic fantasy tale in three parts culminates in an overlong battle scene only to puff out in mediocrity and stereotypes.

If the director chose to stay truth to the source material and left out all this fillers, he could have made an unique movie that consists only of two parts at the utmost and more importantly stands on its own instead of having this "spin-off"-character of LOTR: why trying to copy and even surpass a legendary trilogy that was designed as such from the very beginning by inventing a kind of "prequel" based on a thin bedtime story that doesn't come even close to LOTR in every respect? Is Peter Jackson paying homage to Tolkien or just to himself as the master of battle choreography?

"The Hobbit" was written first, so it's per definition not a prequel, it just happens to play before the events of LOTR, all this references in the movie are simply redundant and serve no other purpose than to satisfy a vain fan nostalgia, it has nothing to do with any real artistic ambitions. it's the pure exploitation of a franchise that comes along with the latest CGI technology. "The Battle of Five Armies" is worth seeing from a technical point of view since the visuals are topnotch, the little, poor rest of the plot that wasn't managed to be finished in the previous parts is somehow pressed in between the fights.

Let's face it, LOTR is far better.

"Guardians of the Galaxy" is a buoyant and joyful roller-coaster ride through a colorful, fantastically imaginative world somewhere on the verge between Sciencefiction and Fantasy only surpassed by "Avatar" in it's artistic abundance - and while missing James Cameron's sense for great dramaturgical peaks on a deeply emotional level that make you suffer with the protagonists, it in exchange comes up with a more or less great sense of humor.

Certainly not every punchline hits its target, however, there are some really, really funny scenes full of self-irony. The main protagonists, the heroes, who are refreshingly different from the typical superhero characters Marvel has to offer, since they all carry the image of being outlaws beyond ordinary social conventions, somehow succeed in managing the balancing act between silliness and seriousness, harmonizing well together and even providing one or two goose-bump moments towards the end.

The plot itself is not very elaborated and feels shallow at times, too much resembling other Marvel movies in its structural build up. More bravado and originality on part of the script authors would have given this in all other respects astonishing motion picture not only more substance and depth but also something that stays with you long after the curtain has fallen and the impressions of the visual effects have faded away. The good thing about the story is that it is fast-paced and does not need three hours to be told.

Also remarkable is the - for such a genre - rather unusual soundtrack consisting of famous pop songs of the 1960's-80's, it contributes much to the positive vibe of the movie since it is played throughout the movie, even serving as a plot device.

The 13 years old comic fan boy/girl will cheer at this, a more mature viewer can certainly appreciate the satirical quality and epic action scenes.

Very entertaining.

Having seen the previous parts I didn't expect much of an intriguing story, just dirty, rough handmade, gun fire action in the style of the 80's blockbuster stunner like "Rambo III" and occasionally a cool one-liner here and there, however, this tired, uninspired, unoriginal, dull, undynamic rehash just made me yawn and anticipate the ending so that I could go home.

Sylvester Stallone once wrote a good script for "Rocky" and now he thinks he can write worthwhile, interesting stories on and on, well, he obviously can't, repeating yourself is one thing but repeating yourself badly without the humor and thrill of the previous works is simply unworthy of the cast consisting of so many action movie legends like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harrison Ford and the like, and it's certainly unworthy of the ticket price.

The new "younger" backup for the Expandables-team of bloodless no-names like Viktor Ortiz or Kellan Lutz (who?) which Sly assembled in a boring interlude where he travels around America, which seems to serve no other purpose than stretching the runtime of the movie to unnecessary 127 min. the longest runtime of the series - nevertheless it felt like the movie had less action scenes than before just because of too much talking and standing around - this said new members are just redundant and pose in no way any competition to the original cast in terms of charisma and camera presence. it's ridiculous that half of the movie is about making us believe that this crew is actually supposed to replace the older ones. Ronda Rousey, the first female addition to the team, makes a face as if someone is constantly holding a stinky sock under her nose, at least she makes her stunts all by herself, right? Antonio Banderas is just laughable in his role as "Galgo", and I don't mean it in a positive, funny way. It's the kind of humor you will find predominantly in cartoons: childish and silly. It's embarrassing that he let himself pay off for this. Wesley Snipes is good for an entry joke, nothing special.

The only redeeming factors are the explosive finale, although devoid of any logic, and surely Mel Gibson's kind of angry performance of the main villain; he clearly enjoys his assigned status of being Hollywood's lunatic number one.

"Expandables 3" is a bad movie, period.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the latest installment of the Planet of the Apes Sci-Fi series that over the years earned a cult status in cinema due to its never outdated allegorical significance and exotic, dystopian world in which our closest animal relatives, the apes, hold up a mirror to us as mankind.

This time we are presented with the simian leader's effort to maintain peace between his species and the last surviving humans, until the dynamics of mistrust, fear and hatred dash any good intentions and pave the way for a belligerent conflict that culminates in an action-packed, visually impressive and emotionally gripping finale that offers some extraordinary beautiful scenes in terms of cinematography and camera work, which are very artistically ambitious and constitute a great deal of the attraction of this movie.

The story itself, although following traditional and therefore somewhat predictable patterns, is well-paced and atmospherically dense, managing to arouse interest for the characters, and most of all it has the merit of having a message rather than just being a framework for sensational action.

Only a certain inaccuracy on part of the script authors - for example the exact number of the simian group seems to vary from scene to scene - and some inconsistencies concerning character development as well as issues with logic and physics, and unfortunately a notable fluctuation in authenticity of the CGI effects, which sometimes slightly mar the magic of watching real apes talking, prevent this Sci-Fi gem to be a true master piece. Nevertheless, it's a very strong and entertaining continuation of the franchise and worth a visit to the theaters.

Finally Godzilla arrived in the 21 century in all his computer animated glory and it all starts where the myth originally came to life: Japan!

What I liked the most about this version is that the director takes the iconic figure of Godzilla very seriously and pays tribute to his roots which is not only mirrored by the monster's traditional looks in contrast to the version of 98, but most of all because the director has understood what Godzilla stands for, which is the pure power of nature, it's a metaphor for all the uncontrollable natural catastrophes that we are helplessly exposed to and a warning of nuclear destruction in the sense of its Japanese creator who developed the idea of Godzilla as a response to the atomic attacks on japan. So it's a logical consequence that we find a lot of references to current major catastrophes in this movie like the great tsunami catastrophe in 2004, the core melt accident in Fukushima, and there are even scenes that reminded me very strongly of ground zero and the aftermath of 09/11 with all the fire men looking for buried survivors in a ruined, dust-covered surrounding. This affinity to real disasters that we have all seen on TV enhances authenticity and thrill factor of the movie.

What's also extraordinary about this release is the way the fighting scenes are presented. It's not only the usual confrontation of several monsters whereupon a whole city is getting destroyed, there is more to this, the director plays with our expectations, he postpones fights, uses special camera angle's and finds quite pictorial ways to present the scenes which thus have a certain poetic quality to them, something unique that was not seen in any of the previous Godzilla movies due to the lack of cinematic means.

In a time where massive city destructions are seen in movie theaters on a regular basis (I mean, the "Transformers" series alone showed them in each of the three parts, not to think of "Pacific Rim", "Avengers" etc.) it is refreshing to see that you still can get something special out of the same genre-typical elements. so everyone who expected just two hours of mindless battles might be surprised by how much thought lies behind this beautifully depicted clash of monsters. It's true, that it takes a while until we hear Godzillas famous roar, however the time it takes is not spent in vain as it serves the creation of suspense and gives space for character development in the context of which the one and only, living legend Bryan Cranston plays a major role as an obsessive scientist who is involved in a very touching family drama. His son, a soldier, later attracts the focus on his struggle to fight back the threat (very evil MUTOS) with military means as there soon comes the point where scientists get pushed back to an counseling role like it is the case with Ken Watanabe who plays an Japanese scientist, a brooding voice of reason and an intermediary between the cultures; its good that the producers chose a Japanese actor to play such an important figure.

The director Gareth Edwards did not reinvent the entire genre, there are still the typical ingredients to be found, but a very smart script that offers some good twists, a strong cast and a very beautiful cinematography make this movie one of the most ambitious and impressive contributions to the monster movie franchise, maybe not as good as "Jurassic Park" but definitely worth seeing. If the Godzilla of 1998 was a silly joke than this one is an awakening, the first milestone of a new era of Godzilla movies that will be measured against this one. The king of monsters has claimed his throne!

Captain America's second strike most of all impresses with hand-to-hand martial art fights, almost too fast for the 3D Camera to capture, and well-timed, old school handmade action scenes such as car chases, machine gun shootings on open streets, and spectacular explosions, using less computer generated special effects than other comic adaptations and refreshingly getting along without a Tesseract or similar plot devices to bring the story forward because this time we are presented with a kind of happy-go-lightly mixture of a classical espionage thriller a la "Bourne Supremacy", a touch of "Die Hard"-one-against-them-all scenario, a little bit of "Terminator"-menace, and of course the usual "Avengers" references like bombastic airship battles that all in all make "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" a quite entertaining and light movie experience.

The characters are very likable especially the supporting cast with Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Samual L. Jackson as Nick Fury who all together upstage the main hero Chris Evans as the "Cap." who begins to thaw only towards the end from his long winter sleep by showing some hidden emotions that seemed to had been frozen inside of him which gave that melancholic touch to his character making him sometimes appear rather pale although it at least prevents him from being a silly chatterbox like some other heroes. In contrast to that lies Black Widow's mysterious aura and sex appeal; an ice-cold femme fatal who is good at fighting and who also has a very human, if not fragile side which makes her approachable and even more charming; she would have deserved an own movie franchise because it's about time for female hero's to be in the front line.

Robert Redford as a kind of dubious head of S.H.I.E.L.D is unfortunately visibly unchallenged by his role, his motivations are rather caricatural.

A definite plus is the main villain, the titular Winter Soldier who is physically equal to "The Cap.". He reminded me of the evil cyborg in "Terminator 2" with his robotic arm and his threatening charisma. They both do not talk very much and whenever the Winter Soldier appears, he seems to trigger his own gravitational field as the camera seems to revolve around him like a satellite giving his character this sense of heaviness which even more underlines his dangerousness and yet there is a secret human core that makes him more ambiguous than which is the case with most of the usual cyborgs. Plotwisely "CA: TWS" surprises not with the rather predictive twists but with a rather naive, but nevertheless charming comment on the current issues with data abuse by intelligence agencies and the question of how far a society is willing to give up their freedom for the sake of security in the face of a potential terrorist attack, and thus it is probably the most socially critical release of Marvel so far.

It may lack of the necessary psychological as well as artistic depth and edginess of a "Dark Knight" that would have left a deeper reverberation with the viewer, it is also not as unique in terms of style as the first part, however, it is good enough to be recommendable, especially to Marvel fans.

The blithe and action-filled sequel to the solid and surprisingly interesting "Thor" from 2011, never quite unfolds the necessary emotional depth that would make you truly care for the characters as there is no character development like in the first part where the all shiny thunder god Thor made a remarkable transformation from an arrogant bully into a responsible hero whereas now he appears to be a rather one-dimensional beau who is good for some stunning stunts and few cool lines; with his roguish brother Loki as a welcome exception since his ambiguous motives have a sort of lurking sensation to them even though he is slowly turning into a Roly-Poly doll whose tricks are getting old.

The rag rug of a plot is too unoriginal and therefore too predictable to be really suspenseful in spite of some more or less contrived twists. It's the ever same "Capture the Flag"-formula, where the hero needs to wrest a "Holy Grail"-like magical stone from the enemy's greedy claws in order to save the world, that we have not just recently seen in too many movies before; whether it's called "Tesseract", "Allspark" or like in this case "Aether", it may be a somewhat necessary plot device that brings forward the action, however, if it remains like here the only impetus, the only sense without a deeper meaning, without a humane message, then it is too little and trite to have a lasting impact. Nowadays, every episode of "Game of Thrones" offers much more excitement and drama than many a Blockbuster I've seen in recent years.

What's missing plot-wise is compensated with great visuals and nearly breathtaking action sequences that come along as a Star Wars meets Lord of the Rings meets Viking mythology crossover fantasy/science-fiction mash-up which is definitely a plus. The invasion of Asgaard by the Dark Elves strongly resembles the great Battle on Naboo in "Star Wars: Episode I" especially since Bambi-eyed Nathalie Portman plays the dame in distress in both movies. The chemistry between her role Jane Foster and Thor is good although their kisses lack the fiery passion we saw in Spiderman for example; much more touching love stories have been told than this one for sure.

"Thor: The Dark Kingdom" is at least nice to look at.

This pseudo-movie is a weary fart in your face, uninspired and lame, a badly contrived succession of predominantly stupid, boring pranks that fail to entertain unless you're maybe 13 years old. I had very low expectations before I saw this and nevertheless I was disappointed afterwards for I felt that Knoxville gave away too much potential considering that the funniest scene - the "Little Miss Sunshine" spoof - had repeatedly been shown in the trailer. The little, chubby sidekick had one or two good moments, nothing of any real interest.

"Bad Grandpa" is certainly the weakest installment in the "Jackass"-franchise, lacking all the crazy, painful stunts that made it so popular, and definitely it is a total waste of money and time. I can imagine that it would be almost good enough for a DVD evening at home with friends and a considerable amount of alcohol but the big theater screen is undoubtedly to big for such a crap. If you want to watch a really funny and smart hidden camera comedy then "Bruno" or "Borat" by Sacha Baron Cohen are the best ones to choose.

"Gravity" is a suspenseful action survival adventure that sets new standards in terms of a realistic depiction of what it feels like to be an astronaut in outer space. The visual effects are just amazing and are only surpassed by the unique, claustrophobic atmosphere created by the simple fact that nothing more than the small, narrow, oxygen-filled shell within your space suit separates you from the deadly vacuum out there.

Being lost in space, we - by the magic of the movie camera which is digitally floating in all imaginable directions - literally witness the dramatic struggle for life through the bloodshot eyes of Sandra Bullock who, in a brilliantly intriguing performance, tries to find a way back to Earth while she is irretrievably running out of her oxygen supply; were it not for the treacherous crunching sound of people eating popcorn, the illusion would be complete! George Clooney as the experienced astronaut Matt Kowalsky, always overshadowed by Bullock's powerful play as Dr. Ryan Stone, is the only help providing some hope in a obviously desperate situation. As a rather chattering person, he contributes to comparatively few dialogs that are unfortunately not always free from typical Hollywood clichés.

Strictly seen this movie has a very thin plot as the director apparently puts much more emphasis on the space experience itself which is underlined by a great, vibrant score crucial to its' huge success since - apart from some radio transmissions between the protagonists - there is of course no sound in the vacuum we would be able to hear; this lack of sound being another tribute to realism as far as it's compatible with the regularities of a blockbuster: Alfonso Cuarón did not intend to make a documentary about disasters in space instead he delivered a very authentic, minimalistic science fiction thriller that can easily form a line with all the great SF-Classics of movie history.

The little kid in you who has always dreamed of becoming an astronaut will definitely leave the theater being nothing but satisfied.

What has started as a very promising cynical satire on the negative side of the "American Dream", in which a trio of painfully dumb bodybuilders try to "reach for more than they can actually grab" by all sorts of criminal activities, ultimately takes a very rash turn for the worse as Michael Bay willingly flushes it down the toilet in a tasteless attempt to exploit a real murder case for the purpose of zero-quality entertainment disgorging a voyeuristic-ally morbid, overblown finale on the audience that is hard to swallow - I even considered leaving the movie theater 20 minutes before the end.

Cinematically similar to Bay's "Bad Boys 2" (or all other movies he's made so far) offering some cool camera shots (especially of backsides of some sexy bikini girls which seems to be his trade mark) and some stylish slow motions, "Pain & Gain" is not only not as funny as the trailer made us believe (I would say it wasn't funny at all), it's also overlong and therefore partly tiresome, and in addition to that, even morally highly objectionable and quite simply utterly stupid.

Set in the beautiful suburbs of Miami, it tells the (allegedly) true story of Daniel Lugo who works as a fitness coach in a fitness center where he meets a lot of people he envies for their wealth; so he decides to kidnap the restaurant owner Victor Kershaw (convincingly impersonated by T. Shaloub), one of his richer customers, in order to take his fortune violently. Mark Wahlberg plays the bull-necked, steroid-pumped muscle dummy wannabe criminal mastermind Lugo with such a furious energy that he alone somehow prevents the movie from being a complete failure while his two partners are just annoyingly stupid and dull. D. Johnson, a decent actor, was apparently struggling to convincingly convey the crass magnitude of his role's endless stupidity and therefore contented himself with just gazing like a sweet puppy through the air and talking nonsense. The dialogs in this movie are ridiculous beyond believe and in harsh contrast to the depicted cruelty of the three imbeciles.

Maybe "Armageddon" will not be the only movie Michael Bay apologized for.