Reviews

Wildly artistic, with great acting, camera work and sound/music design. The plot is about the emancipation of a young woman (technically a child) from her imprisonment due to being a Frankenstein like experiment.

The protagonist, Bella Baxter, has to handle physical & psychological abuse and though this must be traumatizing for her, she sees the world with the eyes of a kid. Also, she is the only character in the movie who does not do anything bad against better knowledge. She hurts and even kills (animals) but all the time, it is out of childish curiosity whilst every other character does bad things (to her) without questioning themselves.

A major part of the movie are the overly explicit sex scenes and their excessive use. Still, they are not unnecessary nor too much but always develop Bella's character and give pieces of information about the people's mindset.

At the end, a plot point is introduced that would not have been needed in this length as the movie would have had a perfect conclusion before already.

Also, I have a problem with the treatment of Godwin Baxter (the Dr. Frankenstein of this movie) and his assistant Max as it contradicts the movie's message in my opinion: While every bad character throughout the movie gets what they deserve or at least is excluded of Bella's life at one point of time, God & Max are allowed to stay in her life although they are 1. Responsible for Bella's miserable start of life and 2. Still experimenting with other humans and animals without questioning their authorization to do so. Therefore, those two men are more than morally questionable but the movie does not want to deal with an adequate treatment for them.

Incredibly well done movie version of the book. Nearly all important scenes from Remarque's bestseller are included.

Unfortunately, you do not really get to know the characters apart from Paul Bäumer and Kat. For a movie that completey evolves around their character dynamics, it does not take enough time to introduce all important characters properly, and also kills them off screen...

Second, in the last quarter, the pace increases and less scenes from the book are adapted. Even some scenes like how Paul's former teacher, Kantorek, has to join the German troops, are completely cut out, though they are somehow necessary to underline the message...

For a movie from 1930, many scenes are really brutal, I might even say, the psychic brutality exceeds the 2022 German movie.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is thematically more relevant today than ever. At first, it's a common Western about a man who wants to bring progress to the rough-and-tumble West and must learn to submit to rules he demonizes (Laws of the West). But the movie evolves into a cautionary tale and raises interesting questions about the political intrigue and use of populism in a region full of uneducated voters. After all, the main character's (extremely successful) political career is based on a lie that became a burden to him over his lifetime.

The film is also otherwise convincing in terms of content: the frame story skillfully opens the plot, giving details that are later satisfactorily brought back to the viewer. This introduction to the plot is also a novel entry in the 60s. The female characters are progressively fleshed out for this type of film and go beyond characterless objects of interaction.

Intelligent low-key situational comedy lightens things up at just the right moments.

And, of course, the actors are as good as we know them (Lee Marvin's bandit Liberty Valance was a real piece of art!)

Finally, the question arises: what if it had been revealed who really shot Liberty Valance?

What else is there to say than: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

I began this movie over 8 months ago, but stopped watching after about half an hour and needed multiple tries to finish it. However this was not because the movie is bad. I just cannot explain why it couldn't hold my tension for a longer time frame.

Basically, it's an usual east asian zombie drama:

• Bad, cringey dialogues
• Logic problems like where do they get all their power from or why don't they use the inhouse phone more often to distract the zombies etc.

• Plot Armor if needed and so on

But it does have its own spin as it takes place entirely in (and around) one appartment block.

The decision to introduce an antagonist in the last 30 minutes was really disappointing and it would have been more interesting to see the interaction of three normal people in one apartment block than the known trope of the psycho who can't let go.

All in all, it would have been an average zombie movie if the finale wouldn't have killed the story by becoming a comic...

The ending with the deus ex machina helicopter rescue was very anticlimactic. I would have enjoyed it more if they would have died for their decisions...

I found the character of Helena to be a nice addition to Indy, especially since the film doesn't fall into the trap of labeling Indy as outdated and building Helena up as the new heroine. Throughout the film, Harrison Ford and Phoebe Waller-Bridge have a great dynamic in their duality with their contrasting approaches to archaeology and their different motivations. We always see Helena's criticism and unkindness towards Indy from Indy's point of view. We feel hurt by her along with our hero, and we triumph together with him when he is able to put Helena back in her place.

This is how you give old heroes a dignified ending: you don't deconstruct them, you show their weaknesses, but you let them have the main attention. Helena is deliberately designed to be riotous and tactless, and cares only about her problems. Indy, on the other hand, has to deal with his breakup, the death of his son and, in the middle of the adventure, the death of a friend. While Helena is happy about the progress in the adventure, Indy rebukes her that this success has cost (many) human lives.

Helena, however, is not annoying as a character for the viewer. Neither in the sense of Willy from part 2 (which was annoying, but bearable), but especially not as Mary Sue. She's not the new best adventurer, unlike Indy, who seemed to be able to handle any situation already as a child. When she jumps on the plane, it takes her more than one attempt to get to the wheel. On the plane, she would die if Indy didn't save her. And even before that, she is not omniscient, but always relies on Indy's knowledge and skills (see deciphering the code or repairing the tuktuks).

Indy, on the other hand, is portrayed throughout the film in two ways: As a hero myth, still our childhood hero in adventure and action, but also as a worn out, old, tired and bitter man (look at the beginning of the 1969 part, sitting collapsed in the subway, boring lectures, etc.). These portrayals both run through the film and there is no point where one supersedes the other. This is good, because in this way the character is neither beaten down nor made immortal, but remains human.

This decision is criticized online. It is often said that Indy should not have been allowed to do any more action himself and should rather have been converted into a teacher for a younger character. From my point of view, that wouldn't work: 1. This role as a teacher doesn't fit Indy's character. He's always been a solitary tough guy who cared most about himself and the treasures he searched for. 2. This would be the typical plot of a legacy sequel and this is exactly the story development that hasn't worked out in any of the franchise revivals of the last decade.

I do have to criticize a few other aspects of the adventure, though: 1. Teddy as a Shorty knock-off is completely unnecessary and adds nothing meaningful to the film. 2. Helena's as well as Indy's motivations to start the adventure are not comprehensible. Why would Helena want to steal her father's research object for an auction of all things? And why, after a certain point in the story, does she then try to solve the riddles about the disk, when all she really needs is some money? And why does Indy vehemently refuse to participate in the search at first, only to suddenly be on fire for the adventure after all? Both characters had more than enough opportunities to draw a line and return to their lives, but they consciously decide against it without justification.

What I like about the plot is that it is so far round and coherent: there is a nice circular connection to the beginning of the whole film series AND more importantly: the film does not suffer from the problem of the first part. Mads Mikkelsen may not be the most interesting antagonist, but it's believable that as a physicist he doesn't have all the knowledge of Jones' archaeological subject matter and thus actually has to rely on chasing after Indy and using his knowledge. Unlike Part 1, in Part 5 the Nazis would never have come up with the film's groundbreaking elements to travel back in time on their own.

The time travel, by the way, is not a point of criticism for me. With ghosts in the first, magic in the second, divine power in the third, aliens in the fourth and now time travel in the fifth part, we have a circular argument here as well. These 5 elements are the categories in which all fantastic stories can be classified. In this respect, it was not only a change from the other films, but even consistent to go this way.

Other minor shortcomings of the film (that didn't matter this much for the rating):

• Where is the dissolve of the Paramount mountain into the scene?

• Soundtrack over the entire film sounds very uncreative to me: lots of reverting to old tracks, new tracks not memorable.

• Harrison Ford CGI in 1944 shows clear flaws, especially in motion. In this implementation, the intro would not have been necessary and only served to introduce Indy's colleagues.

• The Nazis are portrayed in typical American fashion - as they are throughout the series. Personally, too much comic Nazis, so to speak.

• Marion and Mutt were very cheaply written out of the plot of the film.

• A lot of exposition dumping throughout the film (lots of long explanatory sequences).

As the first Indy film, the film does have noticeable lengths (a problem that has been occurring more often with blockbusters lately; across the board, you can actually always cut at least 30 minutes without losing plot, wit, or action)

Just disordered thoughts while watching this time.

Comment on male spy cinema: Female agent & still in a female relationship, not equal strong man but weaker woman.

Nice realistic elements in the staircase fight. Not an overpowered female hero, but a woman who is excellently trained, but only wins because she landed the first shot, ultimately weakening her opponent.

Amazingly fitting built-in oneshots with blatant fight choreo (Not just gunfire, but close combat, fighting with objects & fighters "flying" around due to hits landed). Planning this must have been very elaborate. Believable enemies (not the one hard end boss and the lots of dumb henchmen, but each one on its own is to be taken seriously or you're dead).

The slow lead up to the twist works pretty well. The second twist comes there quite unexpectedly and jarringly reminds us of the medium the film is in: in a game of lies and deceit with an unreliable narrator who only tells us what she wants us (and her bosses) to know and who works only for herself in the end.

The more you think about the decisions that must have constructed this concatenation of events many months or even years before, the more the logic of the story frays. For a film like the James Bond movies, however, more than acceptable (as those are much weirder and still are believed by a broad fanbase).

Turbulent finale, after which one's head hums.

It's especially interesting that it's not a James Bond knock-off with a woman in the lead role, but puts its own stamp on the genre.

Though, the decisive spark was missing for 4/5.

First of all: I can't understand why a movie starring Ezra Miller got greenlit in the first place, after everything he's done in the past.

Miller's acting: I found it very variable throughout the film from bad to ok and back again, never really good. However, I also grew up with the CW Flash and maybe I just haven't gotten used to Miller yet.

From the making of perspective, what is immediately striking is how atrocious the CGI is throughout the film. Where did the $200 million budget go??? Some of the CGI is on par with films like Van Helsing (e.g. Supergirl's Hand in Siberia).

Elfman's music, which plays in basically all of the Keaton-Batman sequences, is of course great, but I can't credit it to the film, only to the masterpieces from which it sprang.

The bike chase with Affleck's Batman at the beginning of the film looks like a rip-off from The Dark Knight, both cinematically and directorially.

The humor sounds a lot like the MCU, not quite on Whedon's Justice League level, but still childish and in parts cringe. A few gags really hit the spot, though. There should have been more of them.

Content The movie is a mix of Man of Steel (with a female Superman, so Woman of Steel), Batman 1989 and Spider-Man No Way Home. I haven't read the Flashpoint comic, but apparently the story shimmies along the most relevant plot points of the comic. In the end, though, you can tell that on a creative level, the main thing they tried to do here was what DC already failed to do with Suicide Squad in 2016: To copy a Marvel success. In contrast to Spidey's story, The Flash remains inconsequential. The film virtually only deals with Barry's train of thought to get to the point where his mother must remain dead and his father in prison. For Peter Parker, on the other hand, the status quo changes after the film.

At the same time, I wonder how stupid Barry is that even though he realizes in the finale that he can't manipulate time using the Speedforce, he still tries to change his father's fate. Again, he could have conjured up a completely different story arc (instead of "just" changing Bruce Wayne).

The two-part final battle is a successful idea in my view, as it is not a typical superhero boss fight (first take out Zodd's henchman, then Zodd), but Zodd is more or less just a kind of obstacle before the real final boss (Barry 2.0) appears and is stopped not even by a fight, but by a sacrifice. In moments like these, the film is surprisingly personal and the superhero drama that Flash is predestined to be.

The post-credit scene, in my view, did not honor having to watch another poorly animated CGI dog. In the end, though, it could be interesting for the DCU under James Gunn and possibly mean that Jason Momoa continues to appear as Aquaman.

Barry's character development throughout the film is very similar to Peter Parker's from Into the Spiderverse: Both have to learn to take on real responsibility and mentor roles for a younger self. So actually, I do the film an injustice when I say that it ends up back at the status quo. Barry Allen as a character definitely makes an important leap in this film. I just fear that it will never really matter again (except for gags) and the real purpose of the film was merely to open up the multiverse.

Speaking of the multiverse, we see virtually every live-action incarnation of Superman & Batman (or even more than were actually on TV at one time, right Nick Cage?), but where has Christian Bale gone? Of course there are some possible logical explanations from the real production. On the level of the film as piece of art, however, it seems as if Bale was deliberately left out of the film by the makers, which disappoints me greatly.

The rest of the cameos I found rather meh, here was of course totally wanted the nostalgia bait.

Also Batman's & Supergirl's deaths were rather poorly staged except from my point of view. If the two had really died for good, then both of their deaths would have been staged more dramatically. From the further course of the plot it is clear that the whole final battle with Zodd in this timeline doesn't happen that way, so the deaths have no further dramaturgical meaning.

Further ("logic") problems: Barry 2.0's announced necessary pauses in the final battle due to his improvised suit are not kept, but also not thematized anymore (although his suit would have to break at some point) - So why bring up this problem at all?

Barry's need for energy is also no longer dramaturgically important after the hospital, but only on a humor level (and even that only until the middle of the film).

For some reason, the time travel theme is immediately understood by every character, and even terms never heard before don't raise any questions in the respective interlocutor. The makers assume that the viewer already knows the principle of time travel and multiverses in order to have to do less exposition. Despite all this, Michael Keaton has a really uninteresting exposition dumping sequence.

Conclusion Contrary to James Gunn's marketing speak, The Flash is not one of the best superhero movies, not even the best superhero movie of 2023. This was foreseeable beforehand, but I find it all the more disappointing in retrospect. I hope the DCU will be able to catch itself in the coming years, otherwise I see black for this part of Warner Studios.

First review after the cinema: All I can say at this point: It's a great movie, watch it if you have the chance!

More elaborated review now: Sisu is quite a stunning film. The synopsis is simple: a Finnish gold miner brutally hunts down Nazis. What unfolds is a fast-paced action story that comes with just the right length, great visuals and lots of blood.

When evaluating this film, you also have to keep in mind that it cost just 6.3 million euros. This movie shows Marvel how to make great action movies without bloated budgets.

First, the visuals: all very high. The images are terrific, the soundtrack memorable, the cuts masterful and even the color grading was really fun to watch this time. Unlike films like All Quiet on the Western Front, this film is not gray on gray, but depicts the colorful Finnish landscape and does so with extreme color saturation. The beauty of nature is virtually an antithesis to the violence to come. The superimposed titles have been completely translated for the German cinema audience and the dubbing is also excellent. These are points that I would possibly not list in such detail in a big blockbuster, but with a 6.3 million budget, this is definitely worthy of praise imho. Only the airplane sequences in the last third of the movie show the budget constraints. The exterior views of the flying airplane show very quickly that it is CGI. Despite this, even those effects are still respectable.

On an artistic level, this movie is a citation firework. The soundtrack and plot development are strongly reminiscent of a western. There are many obvious Tarantino borrowings, e.g. Definition of terms at the beginning of the film like in Pulp Fiction, off-screen narrator voice like Samuel L. Jackson in Inglourious Basterds or chapter markers like in The Hateful 8 in a font like in Inglourious Basterds or The Suicide Squad by James Gunn (here an actual western font is combined with an extremely overdrawn comic adaptation. As a result, you know from the start what kind of realism you're in for).

The actors perfectly displayed their emotions despite or maybe because of few words. For example, when our main character finds a vein of gold, you can believe his every emotion, even though you just met him 5 minutes ago. This is where the film falls off a bit towards the end, when the dialogues become longer and more rambling. E.g. Imho it was not really necessary to tell the tale of Aatami in the middle of the movie. We knew all the important things yet before. What takes us to the next aspect: Show, don't tell.

The movie also masters show, don't tell perfectly. In the opening sequence, when Aatami (the gold miner) is getting dressed, you can see from his scars how many battles he must have fought in, and it is immediately clear from his wedding ring that he must have lost his family a long time ago. Also the situation of the Finnish women in the German convoy is immediately clear to us. No one has to explain to us verbally that they have all already been raped by the Germans, or show a rape. We know it because the film perfectly combines Nazi stereotypes with the acting of everyone involved.

Now let's get to the main aspect of the film: the action. In action movies like Nobody or John Wick, it is clear to the viewer from the very beginning that no normal person would survive what the protagonist survives. Of course, this also applies to Sisu, but the film skillfully hides this. You see Aatami struggle with his injuries several times. Only at the end, during the airplane sequence, it became too over the top for me. In all the events before that, I trusted the character to really be strong enough to survive them (whether it's the river kills or the hanging).

With all the brutality, the action strikes a perfect balance between violence and comedy, through which the viewer is always left with that little aspect that lets them know they're just watching a movie. From my point of view, this is very important for this genre. We never hate the Nazi actors, we just hate the characters - and rightly so. Not every action movie can claim that.

Aside from the airplane sequence, I have one other minor criticism: throughout the film, I was hoping that Aatami wouldn't speak. When he then brings the final gag to the end, it ignites, but it takes away something interesting from the mute main character on an abstract level.

Conclusion: This film is without a doubt totally worth a visit to the cinema!

The film is too long by at least 30 minutes. Both in the first half and in parts of the second half, it struggles with some problems:

1. The story is significantly more insubstantial than its two predecessors. The really important aspects are Rocket's backstory, which I never wanted to hear (There James Gunn told enough and much better in the first two movies through pictures what must have happened to Rocket (keyword show, don't tell)) and the ending with the new Guardians as well as the future for the members of the old Guardians. The ending & midcredits scene are a terrific return to the characters, and go into the defining points of the Guardians of the Galaxy in a very short amount of time. However, the rest of the film could just as easily have been the opening plot of a really good movie.

2. There are no real consequences for us as viewers intrinsically from the film. James Gunn has previously been very propagandizing that this movie is going to be very emotional and that we need to say goodbye to the Guardians. However, the Guardians are all still present, none have died. Those actors who announced that this was their last movie in the MCU are the actual consequences of the movie, nothing that happened in the movie.

3. The postcreditscene with Peter is just meaningless and it wasn't worth waiting for the credits for that reason (it was for the Bruce Springsteen song though ^^)

4. The Needle Drops, one of THE defining themes of the Guardians, have degenerated in this film to something that ranks below David Ayers' Suicide Squad. However, while it didn't bother me that much in DC, it's all the more annoying here that James Gunn seems to have included songs just as an end in themselves, not to incorporate them into the film. The problem came up in The Suicide Squad, but it's extremely noticeable here. It just feels like James Gunn wanted to fulfill an imaginary song quota (à la a new song every 15 minutes or so..).

5. In Guardians Vol. 1, the quasi-introduction to the characters in the Nova Prison hid in the details that Rocket is often with the otter lady Layla. Why did this detail have to be retconned for Vol. 3? Am I supposed to stop being so detail-oriented when watching James Gunn's movies??? Doesn't it matter a few years later what he once built up?

6. The movie is bristling with plot convenience: Peter's one-time alcohol addiction so that Rocket almost dies, the fact that Groot is not scanned for weapons, Groot's sudden wings, what rational reason is there to put Knowhere and all its inhabitants in danger (if you don't know you have to evacuate some gene-experimented kids and animals)? Etc. Here it becomes noticeable that back to front thinking was often done. "What has to happen to lead to the following story outcome? Ah right, ..."

7. Overall, the film doesn't dare to do anything or at least not enough. Example: Peter's space trip. 1. why Peter again, why the same rescue as in Vol. 1? 2. Adam Warlock's personality change could have been portrayed differently (and much better). 3. Peter should have died at this point at the latest, both logically (see Yondu) and dramaturgically...

8. Why did we learn in the Holiday Special that Mantis and Peter are half-siblings? Didn't do anything for the movie and (probably) won't be dealt with in the future...

9. The self-referential breaking of the fourth wall, which James Gunn has apparently now discovered for himself...for years it was a running gag that we viewers only understand Groot from the reactions he evokes in others. Suddenly, not only can he talk normally, no Gamorra even addresses beforehand the absurdity of how "I am Groot" can mean almost anything...seriously? Does James Gunn think that would somehow make the topic more believable (it would have been enough if Groot had just kept saying "I am Groot").

I'm giving it 7 out of 10 stars for now, but would tend to downgrade to 6 if I were to rewatch.

The film may be okay as one cop comedy among many, but it doesn't even come close to the cult series from the 70s. Starsky and Hutch are not defined in the film by their legendary character traits, but by the actors who embody them. It's the Ryan Reynolds problem: you don't see David Starsky, you see Ben Stiller, and you don't see Ken Hutchinson, you see Owen Wilson. At the same time, I don't want to deny that the cast is very good acting-wise. Even Snoop Dogg doesn't play badly; over the top of course, but qualitatively more than acceptable.

Still, the viewer is only connected to the two protagonists throughout the film only by the nostalgia of the series, not by what actually happens in the film.

The homages to films of the 70s (first and foremost Easy Rider, of course) are well done and the song selection is also brimming with nostalgia. There are many scenes that borrow heavily from the series and the recognizable scores from the series also make an appearance.

But what I liked best was the appearance of the original actors of the legendary cop duo. Now I want to watch the series again. I have the film to thank for that <3.

Do I really have to say something about the overarching plot? I do not think so. It is much more interesting how this version of the story stands against the monumental Peter Jackson trilogy from about 20 years ago.

The movie (of course has a much faster pace, but is sometimes even better than Peter Jackson's trilogy, and also sometimes "worse"/at least not as good... Merry, Pippin & Boromir are much better characters in the old movie, Gandalf & Elrond show scenes that do not fit and are portraited much better by Sir Ian McKellen & Hugo Weaving than by animated characters. The scene in Lothlorien is better and worse at the same time as it displays Frodo's real bearing due to the ring but also is shorter and lacks some development like Galadriel's present to Gimli. There is nearly no interplay between Gimli and Legolas like in the newer trilogy, but that does not matter to me, as it was only funny the first time I watched the trilogy...

As a compromise between the short length of the movie and a not too constrained story, it is necessary that there are many expositional monologues that set up the every next part. In my opinion, this was the right way as I suppose a much longer movie would not have been possible these days...

Also, the animated movie does not include any unnecessary scenes with Arwen (as it stays much more true to the books) like Jackson's trilogy did. Though, Tom Bobadil is missing in this movie, too, I don't understand why he seems not to be allowed to be in a Lotr-movie ;-)

Interestingly enough, parts of the movie used real actors that were drawn over afterwards...you could call it an early version of motion capturing if you will. It is definitely one of the movie's remarkable qualities.

To conclude my review: I like this version even more than I like the rl-version by New Line Cinema & Peter Jackson.