Change Your Image
Warge
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)
Disappointing
While most of the elements of the book are there, this remake is an affront to the classic litterature, the original movie and even the TV movie - it doesn't cover the training which was a big part of the book, but it does take up a lot of time regarding the peace negotiation, something that was totally absent, and I think that is the worst part: this movie tries to be something it shouldn't be, namely a story about the soldiers on the ground. It does it's best to add to the mud and the blood, and from that point of view it succeeds, but all of that should be of secondary importance to how the soldiers felt about the war and how their fates were.
I would like to go so far as to say this movie is more "loosely inspired" by the book than showing it, and with just a few tweaks to the script it could have been a separate story, wll worth being told, but now it's neither here nor there.
Pompeii (2014)
Disappointing
Pompeii is probably the one city of the ancient Roman era we know the most about thanks to the fact that the eruption froze the city in time - we know what people talked about, what they worked with, what their concerns were.
And yet, the one movie about the destruction of Pompeii unfortunately focuses more on a gladiator than any one else in the city. And that is so unfortunate, since with Spartacus, Gladiator and a few other features, it seems Hollywood has locked itself up with a gladiator that refuses to let them out. So instead of a movie about the actual retired Syrian marine (for example) who worked as a bronze maker and his day to day, we get another hack n' slash. it's lazy, but even worse it's plain cowardice, that Hollywood couldn't make this movie more about the actual people of Pompeii.
So it was a disappointment from a script perspective, but the historical accuracy also left a lot to be desired, and the CGI was... abysmal. I'm not one who really notices matte paintings that much in movies, but here it was painfully obvious, and all the damn time.
So all in all, what I thought would be a disaster movie set in history, just turned out to be something that should not have been made.
Watch Gladiator, Rome or Spartacus instead. It's not about an exploding mountain, but their production values are way higher.
The Walking Dead: The Game - Season 1 (2012)
Great game
The Walking Dead - The Game goes back to the zombie genre's roots, and turns the zombies into sources of horror instead of gun targets - that is what I think might be the most important aspect of this game, since there are no hordes a la Left 4 Dead to gun down.
And that is important I think to know. The story that plays out is very character driven, and it is more important to interact the right way with the right person than finding a Big F_cking Gun to mow down zombies with.
The protagonist: As in many other games, it is not possible to make your own character - you play as the former university teacher Lee Everett, starting out on his way to prison. This is in some ways a weak point - the game doesn't become so much of an RPG as an interactive film, but luckily, Lee is interesting enough so you don't loose interest in him.
Gameplay: Playing the game on a PC is a breeze - a lot of effort has gone into making sure you only need the movement keys and the mouse to play the game - the inventory is only accessed when needed and everything is lined up in a very straightforward way, from responses to actions.
Here I should also mention that people listens to what you say (or not say in some cases) and remembers it. This is a quite simple way of getting the player involved, especially when people starts referring to what you have said earlier.
Script: Since each episode provides about 2 hours of gameplay, here is the really great strength of the game: in a very short time, you get to know the people around you, and when something happens you CARE. Some very intelligent writing has gone into the game to make sure you will get a very real, and very genuine feeling out of it.
Rating: The game is rated M, and in such a game, it would be almost mandatory to include a couple of steaming sex scenes, but they are very absent. This is actually part of the game's appeal - there is no forced love scene with someone you don't really want to get involved in - but there IS blood. And a lot of it.
Graphics: Since the game is based on the comics, it has taken on graphics that resembles that. This is kind of cool, but sometimes, this is taken a little too far, when you see drawn lines as shadows where there shouldn't be any.
Sound and voice acting: Pretty standard. The voice acting could be a little better, but it works.
All in all, this is a great game and the big shame is that the first season is only five chapters long. But there is hope - apparently, there's already a season 2 in the making.
The Walking Dead: The Game - Season 1 (2012)
Great game
The Walking Dead - The Game goes back to the zombie genre's roots, and turns the zombies into sources of horror instead of gun targets - that is what I think might be the most important aspect of this game, since there are no hordes a la Left 4 Dead to gun down.
And that is important I think to know. The story that plays out is very character driven, and it is more important to interact the right way with the right person than finding a Big F_cking Gun to mow down zombies with.
The protagonist: As in many other games, it is not possible to make your own character - you play as the former university teacher Lee Everett, starting out on his way to prison. This is in some ways a weak point - the game doesn't become so much of an RPG as an interactive film, but luckily, Lee is interesting enough so you don't loose interest in him.
Gameplay: Playing the game on a PC is a breeze - a lot of effort has gone into making sure you only need the movement keys and the mouse to play the game - the inventory is only accessed when needed and everything is lined up in a very straightforward way, from responses to actions.
Here I should also mention that people listens to what you say (or not say in some cases) and remembers it. This is a quite simple way of getting the player involved, especially when people starts referring to what you have said earlier.
Script: Since each episode provides about 2 hours of gameplay, here is the really great strength of the game: in a very short time, you get to know the people around you, and when something happens you CARE. Some very intelligent writing has gone into the game to make sure you will get a very real, and very genuine feeling out of it.
Rating: The game is rated M, and in such a game, it would be almost mandatory to include a couple of steaming sex scenes, but they are very absent. This is actually part of the game's appeal - there is no forced love scene with someone you don't really want to get involved in - but there IS blood. And a lot of it.
Graphics: Since the game is based on the comics, it has taken on graphics that resembles that. This is kind of cool, but sometimes, this is taken a little too far, when you see drawn lines as shadows where there shouldn't be any.
Sound and voice acting: Pretty standard. The voice acting could be a little better, but it works.
All in all, this is a great game and the big shame is that the first season is only five chapters long. But there is hope - apparently, there's already a season 2 in the making.
Dead Island (2011)
Could have fooled me
A fantastic trailer for the game fooled me to get it, and boy, was I fooled! OK, the setting is kind of fun, a little like 'Dead Set' (which handles a zombie outbreak from a group of Big Brother contenders), but it is so very wrong.
Zombies belong to the horror genre, and a resort island has absolutely nothing in common with horror. The entire background for the game is therefore flawed, especially when you also take into account that it never gets dark - the mood is still light and happy happy joy joy. Some rain and wind doesn't change that. Here I do think I should mention the virus - the game makes a quite good attempt at explaining exactly what the virus is, but you can't really do anything about it or dig deeper into that mystery.
In the game you can choose between four characters who are quite well described, but so very cliché - you can't go a game nowadays without having a game with a hot black chick - who also runs around half-naked around crazed flesh-eating zombies... *sigh' doesn't cover it all. I couldn't find a single really likable character amongst these four - Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 also lacked better fleshed out characters, but they were more likable than this bunch.
Which brings me to the 'role-playing' part of the game (it has very little to do with role-playing). The game essentially builds on that you have to do all kinds of stupid side-quests, and even the main quests feel like side-quests since they don't really lead to anything major. And, its ONLY during these missions you will encounter zombies - the safe-houses are so safe its ridiculous. You never get a feeling of dread and fear that something will tear down the walls anytime soon, because that can't happen. Which sucks.
For the voice-acting part, well, it's OK. Its nothing earth-shattering, nothing fancy but it gets the job done.
The zombies are... Well, not that good. They are both slow shambling corpses as in Night of the Living Dead and fast runners as in 28 Days Later, and some might even handle weapons. That is OK, but why couldn't the writers have made up their mind on what kind that would be used? Besides, you never have the option to sneak, but you can most of the time outrun the zombies since they won't leave their turf.
The zombies never come in hordes either, which also adds to the lack of doom and gloom feeling a game like this needs. Five zombies running at you is never a horde, only an annoyance.
The good parts are few, but also very good: the navigation system, where the compass constantly gives the correct path to where you are going is great. I also liked the general user interface where you have stamina which goes down every time you run or fight in melee - that made the fights a little tougher.
Combat is mainly done in close combat - fire arms are quite few, and only available in special places, so its generally a bad idea to pick up a gun and fire away at zombies, since you'll need the guns for non-zombie enemies. And close combat is quite OK. I didn't like that weapons could break (no matter how many heads you bash, a crowbar will NOT break), but I could live with that. Another nice feature was the ability to upgrade or repair weapons, or even create new ones which was a lot of fun.
What I turn against is the sanity of going into close combat with all these zombies, all of which were only around when you were out doing missions - what would actually happen would probably be more of a frog-leaping method from safe house to safe house (as in L4D) until you reached total safety or managed to flee the island.
The sound is OK. That is all there is to say about it, because there is so little of it.
The graphics is sub-par. I don't really think one should pinpoint graphics since that always depends on what kind of system you have, but I played the game with high settings, and it still looked bad - the faces of people were clay-like, environments looked stiff and few things looked really good. The only people that looked good for real were the four main protagonists - and you only see yourself in some carefully selected cutscenes.
The game re-uses some areas. That was bad in Dragon Age 2, and it was bad here. Thankfully much of the game takes place outdoors where this is less noticeable.
Overall, this is not a good game. It is not a bad game, but one that might hold a couple of hours of reasonable entertainment, and there it ends. If there will be a sequel, I really hope they get it right.
Wiedzmin 2: Zabójcy królów (2011)
In the role of gaming
First of all, make no mistake, this is a very good game, just as The Witcher was. It is however NOT a role-playing game in the traditional sense, where you can take on the role of virtually anybody - you are playing as Geralt of Rivia, period meaning you cannot make free decisions - everything boils down to that you are Geralt of Rivia, a witcher. In other games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age, you form your role within slightly wider borders - Mass Effect's Commander Shepard can be a black woman or Asian male if the player would like to, giving slightly better immersion than The Witcher.
Background: Since it is possible to import a save from The Witcher and play on from that, some dialog has been adapted to that, like if Adda lives or died for example. However, a lot of key elements and key characters are simply forgotten and plays no part here, which is a crying shame.
Story: The story in The Witcher 2 is a quite complicated political story, but brilliantly written and executed, and one that does not seem forced. It feels plausible simply put, and the side quests are very good as well even if there are the usual DHL missions (fetch this and deliver it there) but they are quite few. Most side quests are actually deep, meaningful and play a part in the overall scheme. That said, nothing is given freely and sometimes one is forced to simply wait until another mission has played out, which is odd and frustrating.
The mini-games: Part of the game are the mini-games - new is the arm wrestling, but the knuckle fights are still here as well as the dice poker, and these games are simply brilliant. Not only can you make money from them, they are missions in their own right.
The sex: Yes, there is sex in the game, much more explicit than in any other game I've seen, but still keeping a main stream movie style, and I have yet to see two that are alike. I think this is actually quite refreshing, and perhaps it will push gaming into the adult entertainment box instead of being seen, more and more wrong, as something for kids. The sex scenes are very tastefully done, and CD1 should take full credit for that. The potential sex partners are fewer than in The Witcher, but Geralt can still enjoy himself with a wide range of good-looking females.
Graphics: Top-notch. Even if some characters changed their look a lot (including Geralt himself) the entire gaming world paints a very nitty-gritty picture, where there is dirt, mud and every piece of leather shows signs of wear and tear. It is a beautiful world in its own way, and the scope is grand.
Sound and music: Also top-notch. Here I should mention the voice-acting, and this is where the games gets a jackpot. Not a single character is out of place, not a word uttered the wrong way. Someone took great care in directing the actors, who all put in a wonderful effort.
Playing: Here the game let me down. First off, I play with the arrow keys in all games where moving around matters, but it was not possible to keymap the arrows, until a found a solution on a forum and some tweaking of a ini-file. Bad CD1, very bad.
Next came the main feature of games of this type, combat. If you are about to play this game, invest in a good new mouse, because it is a click-click-click-game, and frankly, I hate that. Add to this the fact that sometimes Geralt won't respond to keystrokes, meaning he might be in very deep poo.
Then comes potions, which can NOT be used whenever you feel like it - Geralt has to be in so much safety that he can go into meditation mode for that, and that sucks even worse and can cost a lot in potions if they are used at the wrong time ('ok, this might be a bad place, better buff. Oh, it wasn't...'). It steals away from the gaming experience that Geralt can not walk into an ambush, buff on the fly and fight his way out of it - the usual way I used was simply walking into whatever was ahead, check the resistance and load a saved game for buffing.
But to conclude, despite the small flaws, this is a very good game which will make hours fly away. Highly recommended.
Mein Kampf (2009)
It could have been so good
I own and have read the real Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler during his short stay in prison, and also quite a lot of other literature about Hitler and his early years, which is important, since Hitler did not shy from lying in the book.
Now, the film about Hitler's early years in Vienna could have been so good if it didn't try to explain every little thing that would later happen - the idea to the swastika for example, or even the growth of his now characteristic moustache.
The film portrays Hitler as a young, from the beginning hateful man who is adopted by a jew (of course) and how he drops from being a failed painter to a leader of a small group of thugs, leading them against the jews.
This is ridiculous and has very little with the truth to do. The only thing the film gets right is: Hitler failed getting into the art academy. That's it. The rest is a some kind of desperate attempt to explain every little detail with the later NSDAP and antisemitic movement and of course Hitler himself, which is a pity really, since I looked forward to seeing a film about the early years without the bias towards Hitler - which of course is hard to shy away from if one is a normal, thinking person.
Technically it is brilliant, and the acting is good - what the film lacks is a more observing eye or script, which is the basics in ANY good film.
I would not recommend it, unless one has nothing else to watch and don't care about details as a history buff, because it is good enough to kill a couple of hours with. Despite the flaws.
Barbarossa (2009)
Well worth watching
Let me first say that I watched this film with no preconceptions about it whatsoever - what I knew was that it was about emperor Friederich I, "Barbarossa" ("some German king from the dark ages, wasn't he?"). So, I watched this as a very entertaining view into a sadly forgotten part of history, this fight over the lands how they had become when the Roman Empire was crumbling leaving a massive power vacuum and the German tribes had begun to finally become united.
The film depicted this fight over the desolated areas in northern Italy as far as I can tell very well, showing both the reasoning of Emperor Barbarossa and his queen Beatrix (who appears to have been his personal cheer-leader) and the opposing side, the Company of Death, a loosely formed army from the Italian city states. This opposing side bears a strong resemblance to both the historical American Revolution from which it seemed like they loaned half of the freedom slogans, as well as from Braveheart, which probably provided the other half. Don't get me wrong, I like freedom, but one can only do so much with it, and the cries for freedom became a little silly at times - especially since it appeared to me that they only went to war because they didn't like to be taxed by a German emperor...
Speaking of which: The film is called Barbarossa, but most of the film and the very evident sympathies, lies with Barbarossa's enemies. This is not a biography film, but it would have earned even better marks if it would have been.
So, how was it then? It was grand in scope, ranging in at several years and the SFX - especially the 'Bagdhad by Night - medieval style' sequences were great. However, using such large time frames makes one loose sight on events and details, which is a shame.
Rutger Hauer makes an excellent, if somewhat downplayed Barbarossa, and the rest of the cast make solid performances - no one mentioned, no one forgotten.
It will take a couple of hours to sit thorough this film, but those are hours well spent.
The X Files (1993)
A good show that went down badly
As so many other long-running TV shows, The X-files run at about the same quality - the first season was shaky but got better, not the least helped by the fact the actors themselves gelled with each other. The second season kicked up the pace and quality, and this was consistent until in my opinion the second half of season six when it started going downhill, to become quite ridiculous later on, despite especially Patrick's performance: he lifts the show but has not the same charisma as Duchovny. Gillian Anderson is consistently great throughout the seasons and most of the supporting cast do as well as they can with the limited screen time they get.
Few shows survive long without casualties (Scrubs, which went on for 8 seasons is an exception I can think of), and the X-files is no exception. What is more annoying is the fact that the casualties here are the main characters for long periods of time (Anderson for a long run in season 2 because of pregnancy, Duchovny in season 8 and 9 for reasons unknown to me), but what is even more serious is that the show lose track of what it is doing, and what its purpose is.
That means that we loose the plot of the great invasion/extinction, black oil and conspiracy and instead are fed a half-hearted story about super-soldiers. AND we learn that Mulder and Scully jumped in the sack with each other, when part of the charm with the relationship was that it was non-sexual.
The show was meant to end after season 7 so I see no reason to watch anything after the last episode, Requiem.
Postal (2007)
Violence is fun
It was with a certain feeling of dread I started watching this film - having seen more than my share of really lousy films by Boll I didn't expect much with Postal either.
First of all though: I really like video games, and Postal had a certain something: weird humor, senseless violence and all that, making it not a terrific game, but one that kept me busy for some time.
And the film took all that and gave it life, and I have to admit, it was great! For once Boll has taken a game and turned it into a watchable film, and a comedy at that as well, the hardest type of film you can make.
If course it has flaws - the FX range from bad to mediocre and the plot has more holes than a Swiss cheese, but despite that this became a film well worth watching. It was also nice to see the twists that you not always see in other productions as well as a long cameo by Boll himself.
If Boll can keep this level in future films, there is a lot to look forward to.
Countdown to Looking Glass (1984)
Still going strong
This old film shares the same traits as most other films about a nuclear war, this time as seen from the fourth wall, your TV screen and from the rooms of a news station.
As many other nuclear war movies, in order to really submerge the viewer into something unthinkable, this film does its homework very well, and having 'real' people like Newt Gingrich playing themselves only lends extra weight.
However, being filmed as mainly a series of news broadcasts, the film fails at showing the human side of the conflict, and that is a pity, because the buildup is excellent.
Of all the nuclear war films done in the 80's this is not the best - Threads show a nuclear war MUCH better. But that is not to say this or any other nuclear war film should not be seen - most do a splendid job showing a nuclear war from its respective perspective and Countdown to Looking Glass fits right in.
Since this is written in 2009, it feels like it is still very valid with our bank crisis, failing economy and tension i the middle-east, and the fact that Countdown is still doing fine is a testament to the value and message:
It could still happen.
Saw (2004)
Part of something bigger
Saw is as a standalone film a quite good piece of gruesome and disturbing violence of the worst type. However, I think one has to see Saw with at least Saw 2 and 3 to actually get the entire picture of Jigsaw's mind and why the things happen and why he he orchestrates the kind of torture he do.
Technically the films are not great, but keep a fairly standard style in camera works. The acting is OK but in a few cases, it feels like either over the top or a bit stiff. What confuses me however is how Jigsaw manages to keep track of all things so dependent on timers so to speak, and I find this to be one of the few flaws - everything goes too smooth for Jigsaw, simply put.
In the wave of torture films (Saw, Hostel and others) I think I have to say the Saw 1-3 trilogy to be the best, not watched on a full stomach.
Die Brücke (2008)
Better than the Germans think of it
I noticed that all the former comments about this film were a) made by Germans, and b) they all slander it, and for me that has some weight. I don't know any German, so I can't say if the acting was good or bad, but it looked and felt at least pretty good, most of the time.
As a history buff and germanophile (who can't speak the language - perish the thought!) I found this film to be quite good in a historical context - and, I was impressed by that the equipment used by both Germans and Americans looked very authentic (with one MAJOR exception for the Americans) apart perhaps that the boys were/looked too old: they were supposed to be 16, and not a single one looked that age. Of course, that's the same thing with 25-year-olds playing high school teens in American films...
From a military point of view, this is also a pretty accurate film: The Germans did use single squads of troopers to defend small tactical objectives, as the bridge in the film. It also shows the devastating power of the Panzerfaust 100, the hand-held tank killer. Very nice, unless you are on the receiving end of it.
The sfx was OK, but absolutely nothing fancy.
However, the film has flaws that were carried over the language barrier, namely a totally unnecessary love plot and a more interesting love plot that would have done well to be better developed. Also, I didn't like that characters just vanished from the story without me getting to know of their departure.
I have to agree with some other comments about the lack of character development - it could definitely be better, that's for certain. Oddly, the best character development was done about some of the elder extras, not the main characters.
The film is also too melodramatic for my liking, so much I began thinking of the Russian film Zvesda which was just as bad in that area. Having the film maker telling me to feel sorry for the protagonists is not the way of scoring a 10 on IMDb.
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
Not as bad as it seems to be
My initial vote for this movie was a 6, but since then I have seen other movies about essentially the same thing and had the experience of House of 1000 Corpese mature in my mind for quite some time, which I think it needs. Movies like this aren't produced that often and therefore I guess we aren't used to them, a little like Funny Games for example.
Because even if this movie is heavy of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre influence, even because of the silly inclusion of a Dr Satan, this is certainly not a bad movie. if one has a few horror movies under the belt this won't be especially upsetting, but will provide some good entertainment for the time it last.
After having seen The Devil's Rejects, Rob Zombie's Halloween as well as this one, I have to say Rob Zombie is on to something in the movie business, and since House was the first he directed, he has learned a lot and is getting better - there are directors who have been around for decades and still can't make decent movies, but Zombie has the talent.
Rough as House might seem, it has it points, and I would hereby like to change my initial vote from a 6 to a little more respectable 7. Thank you.
Escape from Sobibor (1987)
Good but not the best
Much film has been done about the holocaust from virtually all angles, and this film fits right in amongst them. Now, I wouldn't say it is the best, not by a long-shot, but it has suspense and more-over and more importantly, a reality background which the film-makers kept close to, backed with closing pictures of the camp today and what happened with some of the survivors. That adds to the value of this film.
However, the film is not as good as it could have been unfortunately. I found the acting being less than average at a few points but especially Rutger Hauer do a good job throughout the film. Then we have my pet peeve that everybody speaks English which removes some of the authenticity but its OK. The SFX was less passable, but again, OK. I found a couple of factual errors as well, but nothing that distracted the overall impression.
Overall though, I would recommend this to watch as a complement to The Grey Zone. They both show uprisings in camps, but The Grey Zone do it much grittier. Simply put, this is a good movie.
Interview (2003)
Minimalistic
For a film with so little action, and so few people, it has a tremendous dialogue and great drama between Pierre and Katja - sometimes a little overdone, but generally the tension is so strong you can't take your eyes from it.
As good as it is, it has its flaws too. Sometimes the journalist really slips off his professional stance which he now and then tries to uphold. I think a real journalist would not do that - as all pros, journalists tend to keep professional, even when doing a job they don't like, or even more so in an unpopular work situation. As a pro and seasoned vet, Pierre should have kept to his professional attitude more.
Likewise, the dialogue goes off the map and then takes its time to get back on track. This is in a way a little tiresome, but also quite intriguing and one of the reasons the film came out so good. A beauty mark so to speak.
This was my first van Gogh film, and I'll be sure to see more of him whenever I can.
Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (2001)
More than just a game
Operation Flashpoint is not your average shoot em up game. It is a one of its kind soldier simulator - which is the reason USMC (and others as well) use a modified version as squad leader training. The game OFP itself is excellent, hands down. However, by adding all the mods and extras made by the community, it is possible you might look at a brand new game. The core game is set in the 80's between the USSR and the US, but I have played as a WW2 German soldier and a modern day Somalian militia to just mention a few. The only thing which is a let down is the graphics but even that can be fixed with the aforementioned mods. Add to that the really easy to use mission editor and you have a package that will last a very long time.
Fargo (1996)
Good but...
This is a film many people think a lot about and try to read messages from in one way or another, when it seems it was just a nice film Coen wanted to make, end of story.
I liked the most of it: the woods, the winter, and with a pregnant cop(!) as the main character. Since I'm from Sweden, it was kind of cool picking up the Americanized Swedish names - Gustafson, Lundegaard and a couple of more - it gave the film a more specific, unique and not very often used location and background which was really nice.
There were not so good points however. I found the dialects too thick (they might talk like that in that are, I have no idea), the character development too shallow and the worst, too many loose strings and oddities thrown in. An Asian guy makes an appearance from nowhere, doesn't contribute and then disappears. The fate of a kid is never resolved, and so on.
However, the thing that really lifts the film are the actors, mainly Buscemi in his best role ever. William Macy is great too and Frances McDormand do well, if not great. Stormare has the weakest part, mainly because his character is almost mute. Not easy to work under such conditions.
So in short, I'd say this is well worth seeing after all. See it not as a Hollywood but as a well done school project.