Reviews

First World War. Blake and Schofield, two British soldiers, have to deliver a message to an isolated regiment. If the message doesn't reach them, 1600 men are going to die. It's going to be a near impossible task for the two young men, but nevertheless they dare to cross the enemy line.

Frankly, Sam Mendes' 1917 is a big disappointment. It looks amazing, that much is true, but everything else is severely lacking. Yes, the camera by the always amazing Roger Deakins is a highlight: The scope is unbelievably wide, yet it feels like Deakins is teasing and daring the audience to look beyond the movie screen. Fantastic stuff! But visuals alone don't make a movie.

There's rarely a theme in 1917 that feels fresh and daring. It's a textbook war movie: There's a tragic death, a big shootout and a forced moment of tenderness and love. It's so predictable it's almost painful. The set piece at the end is truly breathtaking, but the ending itself is downright sappy.

At the end of the day, 1917 doesn't bring many new ideas to the table. It tries to wow the audience with grandiose landscapes, but the two soldiers and their quest keep strangely one-dimensional.

In »Knives Out«, the seemlingly clumsy private investigator Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) is hell-bent on illuminating the mysterious suicide of Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), a famous crime novelist. Blanc teams up with Thrombey's shy nurse Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas). But of course, nothing is as it seems; the Thrombey family is as colorful as it is shady.

Oh, I love these classy crime movies! You know how it works: An old patriarch dies and his whole family wants to inherit the fortune he leaves behind. And of course, you gotta have a creepy mansion with secret passageways as well as an eccentric private eye. Director Rian Johnson (»The Brothers Bloom«, »The Last Jedi«) follows the tried and true formula to a tee, his love for the genre is apparent. There are some ironic moments and references (»Clue«; »Murder, She Wrote«), but most of the time, Johnson plays it straight.

The pacing is fast and entertaining, Benoit Blanc and Marta Cabrera are likeable main characters. Craig apparently had a lot of fun with his portrayal of the strangely clueless Blanc. You always wonder what's the deal with this guy. I personally would have loved to see some kind of backstory for him, but I guess the mystery surrounding him is fascinating as well. De Arma's nervous and kind-harted Marta is very endearing; when you watch this movie, you really want her to get out of this mess unscathed. And yeah, the fact that she has to puke whenever she lies is bloody brilliant.

»Knives Out« works very well as an audience flick. The movie theatre was cram-full when I watched it and everyone had a great time figuring out the twists and turns. Of course this movie doesn't reinvent the wheel; a weakness with most of these stories is the fact that the plot tends to become a bit too convoluted at the end. This happens here, too. But regardless, »Knives Out« is a charismatic update to a familiar genre, political undertones and a dumb yet thrilling car chase included. I'm already looking forward to the announced sequel.

Did we really need a remake of Sam Raimi's iconic horror flick The Evil Dead? Probably not. But you won't hear me complaining. To be honest, I kinda like what I saw. The only thing I truly dislike is the the fact that the main characters are teenagers in the woods. Again. I know that the original also followed this trope, but come on, try something new once in a while! How boring is that? And I didn't need so much backstory for the two main characters Mia and Dave. It felt underdeveloped and overly dramatic at the same time. The script was trying way too hard to be deep. Give me a break. This is a silly demon romp after all. All that being said, if you get past the sappy stuff and take The Evil Dead 2013 for what it wants to be, you'll have a lot of fun.

The characters aren't too annoying, pretty likeable actually. There's plenty of gore, some effective jump scares (a bit too many probably) and passable acting. I'm not a big fan of the special effects, they don't always look convincing. Some scenes were downright silly, I wasn't even sure if intentionally or not. By the way, why does every demon look and even sound like Regan from The Exorcist? That threw me off. The ending is a jaw-dropping, epic bloodfest. Very, very cool. Director Fede Alvarez goes crazy with the camera angles in true Raimi style. I felt the whole thing could have been even crazier, but oh well, for a modern ramake this one isn't bad at all. Give it a chance.

When "Alien" (1979) hit the scene, it was the antithesis of overblown sci-fi with deep questions. It was slick and edgy horror. With "Prometheus", director Ridley Scott betrays this idea; he's in Kubrick mode. There is no reason to explain what the Alien is, but Scott feels the need to do so anyway. I just don't get it. Some of the ideas are pretty interesting, but the plot is full of stupidity and banalities.

Michael Fassbender as the android David is fascinating and Noomi Rapace delivers a heartfelt performance. But other than that, this movie's a pretentious mess; too excessive and cramped. What a waste of talent and money.

Scolded by many as a cinematic catastrophe, "Alien Resurrection" isn't as bad as its reputation. In the fourth installment of the Alien franchise, French Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet revels in B-Movie flavour. It's exaggerated, silly, gory, and (as far as I'm concerned) really entertaining. By the time this movie premiered, many people had a preconceived notion about what an Alien movie ought to be. Jeunet didn't give a s*it about that. I kinda respect that.

Of course, there's moments that are plain stupid and overacted as all hell. But try watching this movie from a trash angle; maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised. As a side note, some of the more sexual moments reminded me of HR Giger's style, which is nice touch in my book.

After the unsettling »Alien« (1979) and the bomastic »Aliens« (1986), »Alien 3« (1992) with its grim tone and slow pace initially looked like a huge dissapointment. It was David Fincher's directorial debut. Nowadays he has to be considered one of the masters of contemporary cinema. But this movie certainly didn't make a good first impression. There are some glaring flaws. First of all, it's unbelievably boring. The first half is slow, predictable and lifeless. It isn't even directed all that well. Today, Fincher is the king of suspense. But in »Alien 3« he works with some of the most tedious jumpscares I've ever seen on screen. It's embarrassing, really. No wonder Fincher himself doesn't like this movie.

The alien itself is laughable. The special effects show their age, but not in a good way. »Alien 3« is CGI city. And this CGI makes the alien look like a lapdog, literally. It's just not frightening, and the whole movie feels like inflated trash. In recent years though, people seem to appreciate »Alien 3« more and more. Myself included. Some aspects of the movie work. The brooding atmosphere is well done, even if it makes the movie far less spectacular than its first two installments. The story has some nice themes, even if the overall arc is hamfisted and trivial. Fincher touches some difficult topics: rape, religion and gender. But the execution just isn't there. At the end of the day, »Alien 3« is a strange hybrid, stuck between shlock and arthouse.

Because of that, it's one of a kind. If you want to watch a flawed yet interesting movie, »Alien 3« might be worth your time. But overall I'd say Fincher was right to expel his first feature film.

»Aliens« is a pretty solid sequel to the sci-fi nightmare that was Ridley Scott's »Alien«, but I can't help but feel that James Cameron's effort is overrated. True, »Aliens« rocks as a grade A hollywood actioner. There are some amazing set pieces. Come to think of it, the whole movie is one gigantic set piece. It's entertaining and suspensful as hell.

And ... that's about all I can say about it. »Aliens« doesn't give me much to think about, although it has so much more plot than the original. This movie is the definition of a blockbuster: well made and engaging, but ultimatively empty and calculated. What escpecially bugs me is the new character Newt. This sweet little girls serves one purpose and one purpose only: Making Ellen Ripley into a mother. Throughout the whole movie Cameron tries to give Ripley a new family. That's interesting enough (altough it may rise some feministic concerns), but it's handled in a painfully heavy-handed way.

Gone is the artful agitation of »Alien«, gone its originality and openness. It's clear that a lot of effort went into »Aliens«, but its emotional core is lacking. It's a worthwhile watch anyway, I'd be a fool to deny the raw power this movie has. It just doesn't feel like an »Alien« flick. Even less so than the much-maligned fourth installment by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

In terms of sci-fi horror, Ridley Scott's »Alien« is as good as it gets. As many people have pointed out, the story is basically B-movie stuff: a spooky monster haunts some hapless people, only this time they're in space. Scott stages the rather simple plot like an arthouse flick, beginning with the slick and lifeless introduction to the space ship Nostromo. The atmosphere is unbelievably tense throughout the movie: from the industrial Nostromo, the stormy planet V-426 to the phallic Alien designed by H. R. Giger.

In many ways, »Alien« is the antithesis to Stanley Kubrick's »2001: A Space Odyssey«, the most megalomaniac movie ever conceived. Ridley Scott shows us that space travel won't be about philosophical self-discovery. It will be about dirty, senseless work. Of course, there are also some gender issues at stake here. Sigourney Weaever as Ellen Ripley might be most badass last girl in movie history - and maybe the first female action star that is not reduced to her womanhood.

If »Alien« has one problem, it's the fact that it betrays its B-movie roots. There is a wannabe-deep scene near the end of the movie that feels affixed, as if Ridley Scott wanted to reconcile the intellectuals in the movie theater. That wasn't necessary at all. Still, if you're into stylish and evocative sci-fi, horror or sci-fi horror, you need to watch »Alien«. Man, what am I talking about? If you're into movies at all, you need to watch this flick.

»K-On!« is one of the most successful anime series ever made. To a distant observer this might seem strange, because the plot looks as empty as it gets. It's just about five girls hanging out together and playing in a school band called »After School Tea Time«. There is no drama to speak of and barely any tension. Still, »K-On!« is remarkable, exactly because it renounces any kind of dramatic structure. The depiction of everyday life is calm, sweet and surprisingly witty. (There are even some jokes about j-horror and slice of life anime.) »K-On!« is the perfect show to sit back and relax after a hard day of work.

But there's more to it than that. With Naoko Yamada (»A Silent Voice«), the anime has a director of great talent. Her portrayal of the young schoolgirls is insightful and lovely. It's more about character, less about plot. Sure, some people might call »K-on!« a mere excuse to show cute girls. But the series has a bigger point to make. It's actually a bittersweet tale of lost innocence. Yamada clearly knows that the friendship depicted in the story is not as firm as it seems. There's a longing nostalgia encasing »K-on!«, the thought of the adult that goes something like this: »Oh, these naive girls, their friendship won't last forever. But I sure whish it would. Hell, I wish my highschool years were like this!«

In the first season, Yamada totaly merges into the ideal world of the highschool student. In the second season, she unravels this illusion gently. The conclusion of this theme is very touching. If you want to watch a relaxing, entertaining and sensitive anime, you can't go wrong with »K-on!«. It's heartfelt and doesn't deserve the eye-rolls it sometimes gets.

In the 1970s, historian Lutz Becker discovered a singular contemporary document: the so called "Home Videos" of Eva Braun. The 16 mm images show Adolf Hitler and his entourage in his country home Berghof at Obersalzberg. Becker turned to the young director Philippe Mora, who arranged the Home Videos with other footage from Germany in the 30s. The result was an unusual documentary: "Swastika". It premiered in 1973 at Cannes, where it caused a scandal. The movie had to be stopped halfway through, because the audience was irritated by the seemingly trivializing depiction of Hitler. In France, the movie role was stolen from a cinema and spread over the graves of Jewish Holocaust victims.

As you can see, "Swastika" was political dynamite. It was one major decision by Philippe Mora that caused all the fuss: He renounced every didactic commentary. There is no voice-over contextualizing the footage. Whoever watches this movie has to establish the critical distance alone. We have to find our own way through the propaganda Mora confronts us with. That makes for a challenging, captivating experience. The movie isn't completely neutral, though. There might be no verbal commentary, but there certainly is a stylistic one. For instance, in one scene we see Hitler taking a walk with a small girl, where Mora cuts repeatedly to pauperized ghetto children. Interestingly, these direct condemnations form the weakest parts of "Swastika". The movie is at its best when it just shows us the German delirium that was the Third Reich: cheering crowds, swastikas everywhere, sappy art, orotundity à la Riefenstahl, and finally Hitler presenting himself as a cool-headed and insightful leader. This madness ought to be a punch in the gut of every (reflected) viewer.

Then there are the color movies that Eva Braun recorded at Obersalzberg. We see a middle-class community enjoying itself, all while the Holocaust is raging. Among them: Hitler the personified evil, shown in all his banality. He's shockingly boring, standing around clumsily, almost dim-witted; talking about the Hollywood classic "Gone With the Wind", pondering the future of technicolor and playing with his dog Blondi. What do these images want to show us? What can they show us? The answer is: not much. At least nothing we shouldn't have known in the first place. Hitler wasn't some kind of monstrosity that came from outer space. He was a human like all of us. If we dehumanize him, we will never understand the catastrophe that was Word War II - insofar it is understandable at all. That's a simple yet important message the movie tells us rather clumsily at times. But "Swastika" shouldn't be reduced to that basic thesis. It shows more than it tells.

The juxtaposition of image and sound is especially remarkable. The love song "What Wouldn't I Do for That Man" ironically characterizes not only the relationship between Hitler and Eva Braun, but also the Hitler cult of the Germans. The use of Noël Coward's satirical song "Don't Let's Be Beastly To The Germans" after devastating pictures of mass extermination is downright cynical.

To this day, "Swastika" is a brave documentary that omits instruction (almost) entirely. The execution is a bit shaky, but you can't deny the unsettling atmosphere Mora's editing creates.

American author Catherine travels to Bali to learn the art of "Leák" – some kind of black magic. Her native boyfriend Mahendra introduces her to a shady Leák mistress. The witch teaches Catherine strange rituals including (but not limited to) maniacal laughter, erratic dancing and pig transformations. Pretty awesome, isn't it? Well, unfortunately the witch turns out to be evil. She takes control over Catherine's head at night and forces her to gather blood. Mahendra tries to cut the bond between Catherine and the witch, but that's easier said than done.

"Leák" (better known as "Mystics in Bali") is an Indonesian horror movie about the mythological figure Leyak: a flying head floating trough the night and sucking the blood of newborn babies, with the entrails of its former body still hanging from it. For Indonesians, this legend might be familiar, but for us westerners it's decidedly weird, especially because the director H. Tjut Djalil doesn't feel the need to explain what's happening on screen. But regardless of our cultural background, I think we can all agree that this movie wonderfully crazy trip which will conjure a smile on the face of every trash fan out there.

The plot is strange from beginning to end, and there's no point in me listing all the lunatic scenes - you have to experience them first-hand. What makes "Leák" so funny is the fact that neither Catherine nor Mehandra seem to be bothered by the outrageous events. They're like: "Let's meet with this disfigured witch and learn black magic! You can't go wrong with that, can you? Oh, could it be that Catherine killed someone?! Ah well, whatever. Let's kiss and be all lovey-dovey!" Those two might be the most carefree couple in film history.

Amidst all the chaos there are some quite effective scenes. The cheap special effects are disturbing at times. But "Leák" seldom is truly scary. The story is told roughly. The ending is an overhasty jumble: Things seem to happen at random, and then the movie ends abruptly.

All in all, "Leák" is an interesting yet clumsy introduction to Indonesian mythology. The shocks are few and far between, but the movie amuses with obscure ideas and visuals.

A suicidal man named Hank is stranded on a lonely island. There he meets the corpse Manny who's suffering from terrible flatulence. Hank uses the dead body and its farts to cross the ocean. (Don't ask.) They reach a jungle, where a struggle for survival begins. Hank realizes that Manny is kinda like a human Swiss army knife. He uses him as a hunting weapon, a grapple and a compass. (Yeah. Don't ask.) But Manny only functions when he gets motivated properly. So the world-worn Hank needs to teach the corpse how beautiful life actually is.

Yes. This seriously is the plot of "Swiss Army Man", an off-kilter and juvenile adventure movie full of fart and masturbation jokes. The two directors Daniel Scheinert and Daniel Kwan ("Daniels") display a crude humor, which definitively isn't for everyone. But if you give this movie a chance and make it through the clunky first act, you might realize that the plot has more to offer than just trash madness. It's actually a rather sad story about a depressed and lonely young man trying to find himself. There are some really inspiring and beautiful montages, that are technically impressive as well.

The relationship between Hank and Manny is the heart of this movie. The two leads have an amazing chemistry going on. Paul Dano ("There Will Be Blood") is very relatable, because he is just as astonished about the strange circumstances as the audience is. Daniel Radcliffe ("Harry Potter") has an impeccable comedic timing: His Manny is one of the funniest characters I have seen in a long time. The relationship between Hank and Manny lends itself to interpretation: Are they friends, a homosexual couple or ego and alter ego? But of course you shouldn't overthink "Swiss Army Man", because it doesn't take itself too seriously. The movie ends with a flabbergasted Mary Elizabeth Winstead ("Scott Pilgrim vs. the World") whispering: "What the f***?" Great question.

"Swiss Army Man" is a featherbrained, philosophical, absurd and beautiful buddy movie. Bear with the unrefined beginning and you'll get rewarded with big laughs and small insights.

Amy and Nick Dunne are young, stylish and charming. The immaculate dream couple? It seems so, at least on the face of it. But infidelity and financial troubles let the glamorous façade crumble. One morning, Amy disappears without a trace, and Nick becomes suspect. Did he kill his wife? The media depict him as an uncaring husband, and he's trying desperately to correct that image. But what if he really is the murderer everyone believes him to be?

"Gone Girl", based on the Gillian Flynn novel of the same name, is a masterful thriller, a sharp-sighted media satire and a cynical analysis of modern marriage. Flynn herself wrote the screenplay for the movie adaptation, and David Fincher turns the already disturbing story into something even darker. "Gone Girl" is a perfect fit for Fincher, as it is concerned with two of his favorite themes: gender issues and modern media. The main topic here is how the media are shaping our own identities. Nick Dunne has to adapt to the expectations of the public in order to survive. As his lawyer Tanner Bolt puts it: "This case is about what people think of you."

Amy and Nick both just play a character. They pretend to be a perfect couple. The movie suggests that pretending and being are not as far apart as we tend to think. When everyone plays along, the shallow masks are going to work. The much-maligned ending underlines this insight perfidiously. It's the point where "Gone Girl" becomes a pitch-black social satire. The last act isn't a thriller anymore, it's a grotesque caricature of modern relationships. I've never seen anything like it, and I can't praise Fincher enough for the risk he took with the last half an hour of this movie.

Ben Affleck is great as the insipid husband Nick. You love to hate him. Rosamund Pike is simply mind-blowing. You'll also see Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry in unusual roles. My personal favorite is Carrie Coon as Nick's caring yet foul-mouthed sister Margo. She's the heart of this movie, because unlike everyone else, she genuinely speaks her mind. Kim Dickens as the clever detective Rhonda Boney is pretty approachable, too.

"Gone Girl" might be Fincher's most splendid masterpiece yet. This movie is so unsettling and cynical, it feels like it was directed by the love child of Alfred Hitchcock and Lars von Trier. If that's not awesome, I don't know what is.

Los Angeles. A young man named Frank Zito lurks through the streets at night to ambush and kill attractive women. He scalps them and staples their hair to the mannequins in his apartment. When he meets the beautiful fledgling artist Anna, for the first time in his life he feels something like love. But is a perverted psychopath like him even able to connect with a woman in a normal way?

In 1980 William Lustig made a movie that dared to dive into the troubled mind of a mass murderer and shocked its audience with explicit, seemingly tasteless imagery: "Maniac". In 2012 the French horror expert Alexandre Aja ("Haute Tension", "The Hills Have Eyes") produces a remake of the controversial slasher classic. Director Franck Khalfoun focuses on one stylistic gimmick: He films (almost) everything from the psycho's perspective. We as an audience are forced to share Frank's demented vision. We become dirty stalkers ambuscading innocent women. That's very disturbing, especially because the moments before the actual murders are strangely suspenseful, entertaining even.

But after the death of several women, the effect wears off and you begin to wonder: What's the point of this? Sure, Khalfoun tries to psychologize the killer, but these attempts remain crude and somewhat stereotypical. We aren't able to sympathize with the character anyway, so it might have been better to keep his motives a mystery. That would have made the experience even more unsettling. One theme of "Maniac" is the objectification of women from the subjective standpoint of a man. The women in this story are reduced to mere mannequins. That certainly makes you think, but the movie isn't meta enough to reflect its own objectification. It remains a slasher flick, after all - albeit a very effective and unconventional one.

Elijah Wood ("Lord of the Rings") does a great job as Frank, who seems shy and charismatic, but really is a sicko. Nora Arnezeder as the French artist is much more than just a sweet love interest. It's a shame that the screenplay doesn't give these two characters the depth they deserve. The writers rely heavily on the expressive POV shots, but these alone don't explain much. They certainly don't replace profound writing, which is lacking here. The killing scenes are extremely graphic. But I wonder why the camera leaves Frank's POV when things get really disgusting. Is it because Khalfoun doesn't want to tax the audience too much? Or does the gore look better from a distance? I don't know, but either way this decision seems inconsistent with the premise of the movie.

"Maniac" is a thrilling experiment, but it's not as clever as it pretends to be. Still, as a stylish slasher movie it works pretty well. Give it a shot, but don't expect a genre-defining film.

Barbara and Johnny visit their father's grave somewhere in the American countryside. When they arrive at the spooky graveyard, Johnny teases his jumpy sister: "They're coming to get you, Barbara." But the joke is on him, because they are really coming to get Barbara. And Johnny, too. And the hole country for that matter. A mysterious epidemic causes the dead to rise from their graves and attack the living. One of those ghouls attacks Barbara. Johnny defends her, and Barbara flees in terror. She reaches a secluded farm house and meets other people who seek shelter. Can these strangers work together in order to survive? Or are they going to destroy each other, before the ghouls even reach them?

"Night of the Living Dead" is one of my favorite movies of all time. It certainly is the best horror movie I've ever seen. That being said, it's difficult to explain why I love it so much. It is a low budget flick. There are some glaring editing mistakes and the acting is subpar most of the time. But like no other movie out there, "Night of the Living Dead" is able to turn its trash atmosphere into pure art. It's such a gritty and dirty experience, you feel like you need a shower afterwards. There are two main reasons why this movie is so effective: the director George A. Romero and the subtext of the screenplay.

Romero didn't have much to work with, but he made it count. The scene where Barbara explores the empty farm house is exquisite. The lighting is reminiscent of German Expressionism. The awry camera settings and the contrast between light and dark are great devices to elucidate Barbara's trauma. There is a scene where Romero pans over the barricaded interior of the farm house. The intersecting planks form an abstract pattern that is strangely unsettling. You'll soon realize that this movie might be cheap, but surprisingly artful as well.

"Night of the Living Dead" was a watershed for modern horror because it was insanely gruesome for the time: There are zombies hunting people and eating the flesh of their prey. But it's not the explicit gore that makes this movie so effective. The true horror stems from the way Romero depicts these acts of violence. They come across as surreal and deviant, like you're having a sick fever dream.

The subtext of this movie is incredibly rich. The screenplay tackles many unwieldy political topics - war, racism and marriage are only a few of them. "Night of the Living Dead" is a relentless, apocalyptic nightmare that has nothing for the audience except unnerving pessimism. The ending of this movie might just be the best ending in movie history: It's poignant, courageous and subversive.

"Night of the Living Dead" is an utterly unique, matchless horror movie. If you haven't seen it, watch it. Now. And if you already saw it, watch it again. Now.

The Creed family has a sweet house cat named Church. Unfortunately, it gets run over by a truck and dies. The family's neighbor Jud has a suggestion: Why not bury Church in the mysterious "Pet Semetary", which is hidden near their house? The father Louis Creed dares to do it. And what do you know, the next morning Church is alive and well again. But he does seem somewhat different … Has Louis disturbed the border between life and death?

"Pet Sematary" is an allegoric horror flick, based on the Stephen King novel of the same name. The screenplay was written by King himself. That seems promising, but it turns out to be disappointing. The script is fast-paced, but way too preachy, focusing on the trite tagline: "Sometimes, death is better." The message here is painfully obvious, which makes the movie a rather dull affair. I didn't care for the actors, either. Fred Gwynne apparently enjoys his role as the shady neighbor, but he chews the scenery like there is no tomorrow. And Dale Midkiff as Louis Creed is so wooden, you can't get into his character. That's especially true in the last third, where he's acting like a total nut job.

Director Mary Lambert saves this movie from being a flop. She treats us with some seriously creepy and gory scenes. But she doesn't always find the right tone. In some parts, you're not sure if you're supposed to wince or laugh. There's an undead sidekick named Victor Pascow. I guess he was meant to be funny, but it's not entirely clear. During the finale, "Pet Sematary" mutates into an exponent of the slasher genre, which is entertaining enough, but doesn't help the story at all. The ending is downright laughable. I enjoyed it quite a bit - on a trash level, mind you.

You can get some thrills out of "Pet Semetary", but I can't wholeheartedly recommend it. The story is too crude and the execution too muddled.

It's the 1930s. Korea is occupied by Japan. A clever rascal named Fujiwara plans a conspiracy to con the Japanese Lady Hideko out of all her money. His idea: The lady shall fall in love with him, and after the marriage he will put her in an asylum. The pickpocket Sook-hee, disguised as a handmaiden, is meant to influence Hideko. Fujiwara, Hideko and Sook-hee entangle themselves in a web of liaisons and intrigues ...

"The Handmaiden" by Park Chan-wook is the riveting tale of a love triangle, where nothing is as it seems. It's disturbing, humorous, erotic, suspenseful and cryptic - a treat for everyone enjoying weird and original cinema. Park Chan-wook is well known for his movies dealing with themes such as violence, perversion and insanity. "The Handmaiden" might be his most excellent effort to date, even surpassing the powerful revenge thriller "Oldboy" (2003), which is a bit too erratic and over the top. This movie however has a clear vision and a much more subtle approach, masterfully playing with the expectations of its audience and twisting the story several times.

This movie is about men forcing their sexual fantasies on women: Hideko is forced to read grubby texts to a male audience and to perform strange BDSM aerobatics. The only way she can escape this perverted world is through lesbian love, which culminates in one of the most awe-inspiring sex scenes I've ever seen. Park's depiction of sexuality is subversive, as there seems to be no escape from male fantasies no matter what. (And not just because Park is a male director.) There's some really interesting subtext going on here, but that doesn't mean that "The Handmaiden" is just pretentious gibberish. No, it tells an entertaining and engaging story as well, all while looking gorgeous. The humour is pretty great, too: There are many laugh out loud scenes. (Yeah, there might be some penis jokes in this.)

With "The Handmaiden", Park Chan-wook proves that he's still one of the most exciting directors in contemporary cinema. His vision is artistic and daring, light-footed and sexy, captivating and beautiful. It's a brutal thriller, a sentimental drama and an erotic romance all at once. A truly original movie. Don't miss it.

The charismatic Australian Ted visits an American town and gets appointed as a barkeeper there. Ted seems to carry about a dark secret. When people randomly die in town he raises suspicion. Who is he really? And more importantly: Who cares?

"Howling VII" a. k. a. "Howling: New Moon Rising" is where the Howling series finally hit rock bottom. It's a spectacularly bad movie made by Clive Turner, who was part of the Howling crew since "Howling IV". In this one, he's the director, the screenwriter AND the leading actor. Oh boy. This is one of those passionate and "artistic" ego projects, isn't it? Turner tries to connect the previous Howling sequels with each other, which of course is a hopeless task. At least we get to see some clips from the other movies. Sadly, these are the most interesting parts in "Howling VII". The rest of the movie is just pointless, boring banter. Seriously, you could cut 90% of the dialogue, and it wouldn't change the story at all.

The actors aren't even actors. They're just some dudes hanging around town, drinking, making stupid jokes, line dancing and singing sappy country songs. My God, what was Turner thinking? This barely even qualifies as a movie. This is so inept, it's almost adorable. Oh, and there's supposed to be a werewolf in this? Unfortunately, there are only ruddled werewolf POV shots. You're lucky if you're able to see anything. An ingenious avant-garde move by Turner - or, you know, just cheap filmmaking. At the grand finale, we finally see the werewolf. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. The transformation scene is as hilariously bad as it gets.

Truly, this is a trash movie for the ages and a fitting conclusion to the Howling series: boring, awkward and completely mindless. Avoid. Unless you're into really, really, really bad movies.

A mysterious young man named Ian makes his home in a small town, where he falls in love with Elisabeth, a preacher's daughter. All is well. But wait! A creepy traveling circus visits town, and its leader Harper has some shady business going on. There seems to be a connection between Ian and Harper - a connection that threatens to cause turmoil in the peaceful town.

The never-ending Howling series is back, this time with Part VI: "The Freaks". Like its precursor "Howling V", this movie is alright, but nothing to write home about. The story is okay and the characters are likable enough. At least they gave them some defined features, which is a rarity in the Howling franchise. The circus atmosphere is kinda creepy and the transformation scenes are cool. The editing does a better job than the special effects, though. This wouldn't be the Howling without some blunders. I counted two boom mics hanging in the screen, maybe there are more. Classic.

"Howling VI" doesn't have too many horror scenes: There's a nicely timed jump scare, three transformation scenes, a bloody corpse and that's basically it. This movie is more about the conflict between Ian and Harper. The script raises an interesting question: What does it mean to be a "freak" and a social outcast? But it doesn't provide satisfying answers. Instead, it backtracks into a generic love story. Still, it's nice that they even touched a topic like that. The acting is fairly decent this time around. Brendan Hughes as Ian is sympathetic, and Bruce Payne as the evil Harker hams it up delightfully. Michele Matheson's voice is a bit annoying, but she does a good job as the love interest Elisabeth.

"Howling VI" made me care about the characters, which is a novelty. But this movie won't transform the Howling franchise into a prestigious horror series. A zealous plot featuring likable characters doesn't make a suspenseful horror flick, after all. The execution is as subpar as ever. It's one of the more proficient Howling movies. But that doesn't mean it's worthy of your time.

Count Istvan invites twelve people to a spooky castle that was locked up for more than 500 years. In the evening a blizzard encases the dark ruins and traps the twelve visitors inside. Suddenly people disappear. A wild animal seems to walk abroad. Is it a werewolf like the legend suggests? Or is it just the count playing a sadistic game? A life-threatening cat-and-mouse game ensues.

The Howling franchise is a cinematic trainwreck of epic proportions. Parts II and III are crackbrained trash festivals, while Part IV is a dreary remake of Part I, which isn't that great to begin with. Within this landscape of dilettantism, "Howling V: The Rebirth" is a breath of fresh air. It's actually a quite decent flick, mixing slasher elements with a murder mystery plot. The script has some engaging twists and turns, although it ultimately is pretty predictable. The twelve characters aren't fleshed out enough. They're sketchy stereotypes at best. There's a smart-alec professor, a femme fatale, a goofy never-do-well, an aloof pretty boy and a painfully naive fool of woman. You'll have a hard time caring about even one of these characters, which hurts the suspense a lot.

There are some cool jump scares, but other than that, the horror elements are pretty tame. In fact, we barely see any werewolfs. Most of the action happens off screen. Director Neal Sundstrom emphasises mystery over gore, which is fine with me. (I'm not sure if I want to see any more Howling werewolfs, at this point.) The castle has an eerie look to it and the soundtrack is amazing. Whenever one of the visitors gets murdered, there's an epic music cue: a choir singing something like "Sanctus! Sanctuuus!" After the second time, I sang along cheerfully. Great stuff.

Phil Davis does a good job portraying the humorless Count Istvan. Otherwise, the acting is subpar at best. Elizabeth Shé as the starry-eyed Marylou is the queen of underacting: "No. This is not real. Please say it's not real. (Yawn.)"

"Howling V" is by far the best of the Howling sequels. (Hey, it only took them four tries.) But that's not saying much. Check it out if you want to watch a decent, yet clumsy werewolf murder mystery.

The successful author Marie Adams is haunted by nightmares. In order to recover, she travels to the countryside with her husband Richard. At night, she hears the howling of wild animals. Together with the former nun Janice she tries to uncover the mystery. Does that sound familiar? You bet it does. "Howling IV" is the forth entry in the "Howling" series and basically a rehash of the original "The Howling" from 1981. They most certainly wanted to distance themselves from the two trash escapades that were Part II and III. That was probably a good idea. Unfortunately, the result is a veritable snoozefest.

Bless them, they were trying their best to give the story some kind of class. But it's just plain boring. The movie spends a whole hour to mystifying the fact that we are dealing with werewolfs here. We already know that, guys! It's the fourth movie, there's no need to be so secretive about it. The production is riddled with shortcomings. The editing is unbelievably sloppy and the sound is inconsistent. The script is slow and predictable. The special effects at the end of the movie are alright, and the obligatory transformation scene is pretty cool. But at this point, why should we even care?

"Howling IV" is a truly mystifying movie. There's just no good reason for this remake to exist. It's worse than the original in every single way, and the original wasn't that great in the first place. A lycanthropic sleeping pill – ingest at your own risk.

Australia in the 80s. Donny falls in love with the beautiful Jerboa. Unfortunately, Jerboa turns out to be a werewolf. But Donny doesn't seem to care and they both flee into the wild. Meanwhile, werewolf expert professor Beckmeyer is assigned to exterminate all the werewolfs. The scientist grows to like the misunderstood creatures and tries to hide them from the military. Will that work?

"Howling III" is the third part of the Howling series. It was directed by Philippe Mora who was responsible for the sleazy second part as well. At this point I am inclined to call Philippe the Ed Wood of werewolf flicks, because "Howling III" is a glorious trash gem. It is a wild mixture of different genres: It begins as a romance, mutates into a horror comedy and ends as a sentimental condemnation of racism. Sounds great? Guess what: It is.

The humorous parts are surprisingly self-reflective. There's a pretentious director talking about Andy Warhol making a really demented movie. There's a scene where Jerboa and Donny watch a terrible horror flick. A B-movie in a B-movie! That's genuinely hilarious. Mora cites many other movies, such as "Psycho", "Alien" and even "An American Werewolf in London". (Oh, the irony.) The ending is a nod to "The Howling" from 1981. Pretty cool. The horror scenes in "Howling III" are gross, especially the infamous birthing scene which is just … yuck. But there's some decidedly awesome stuff, too. There's a werewolf zombie, guys! And a guy blowing himself up with a freaking rocket launcher.

If you haven't already guessed, this movie is all over the place. At the end it becomes a cutesy romance, which makes you wonder if you're watching a perverted prototype of the "Twilight" series. You've got to give Philippe Mora some credit. This movie is quite original. It certainly is one of the most unusual werewolf flicks ever. The script treats them as an endangered species, not as bloodthirsty monstrosities. That's a nice touch. Still, many things are downright bad: The acting is abysmal at times, the special effects are sloppy and the story is full of plot holes.

Philippe Mora's "Howling III" is a spectacular mess. It's the fabric cult classics are made of. If you're a trash fan, this one is a must-see. But be warned: It might fry your brain.

Who is Mira Killian? Some call her a machine, others call her a weapon. A few years ago, she almost died because of a serious accident. The shady corporation Hanka Robotics extracted her brain and planted it into a synthetic body – an empty vessel. Now Mira fights cyber crime for the Japanese government. A mysterious Hacker by the nickname of Kuze seems to be the key to Mira's past. A frantic chase through dystopian Tokyo ensues. But does Mira really want to know who she actually is?

Mamoru Oshii's "Ghost in the Shell" from 1995 is an anime and sci-fi classic: It is visionary, artistic, exciting and meaningful. The prospect of Hollywood remaking such a masterpiece is bound to raise some eyebrows. I was sceptical myself. But Rupert Sanders' 2017 version of "Ghost in the Shell" pleasantly surprised me. Of course, if you think of the original as the Holy Grail, you might as well not bother with this new movie; you're going to dislike it no matter what. But if you watch it with an open mind, you will soon realize that it's not as horrible as it's made out to be. In fact, it's a pretty great movie.

Oshii's anime is deep and philosophical. Sanders' real life version is not. Which is fine by me, because Sanders succeeds in giving the source material (that is, Masamune Shirow's manga series) another emphasis: an emotional one. It is all about the feelings of the protagonist Mira. Oshii's "Ghost in the Shell" might be a masterpiece, but there's no denying that its protagonist Major is more a shell than a ghost. In the original, Major ceases to be a person – she dissolves. In the remake, it's the exact opposite: Mira gradually becomes a person. That's a great twist to refresh the story we already know and love. I for one was spellbound by Mira's quest for identity.

This movie has some obvious flaws. The script is wise enough to stay away from the musings of the original. But the few times it tries to be philosophical, it is painfully trivial instead. The villain is a paper cut-out. The visuals are impressive, but sometimes they're a bit too shiny for their own good. But other than that, there's much to enjoy. They recreated many iconic scenes from the original, which is great fan service – for the most part, anyway. (Remaking the stunning opening credits from the original is a hopeless task.) Scarlett Johansson is amazing as Mira Killian – a real action star. Speaking of action, the fight scenes in this movie are as spectacular as they're stylish. Here and there, Sanders is able to give the imagery an artistic touch I wasn't expecting at all. Plus, there's Takeshi Kitano being a total badass. Yay!

"Ghost in the Shell 2017" provides interesting, thrilling and emotionally charged sci-fi action. It might not be the most original movie ever, but it is an admirable effort to do the original justice.

Ben White mourns his sister Karen who died under mysterious circumstances. At Karen's funeral, a strange guy named Stefan Crosscoe shows up and convinces Ben that his sister was a werewolf. They both travel to Transylvania to exterminate the lycanthropic plague. But it's not that easy. They need to kill the werewolf queen Stirba who has a huge army of hungry beasts under her command.

"Howling II" (1985) with the delightfully sensational subtitle "Stirba – Werewolf Bitch" is the sequel of Joe Dante's "The Howling" (1981). It starts where the first movie ends: With the the dead of TV host Karen White. The original already has a bit of a trash flavour, but the second part is a completely different ball game. The movie begins with Christopher Lee as Stefan Crosscoe reciting some spooky lines from an old book. Then there's a cemetery fight, werewolf sex, human sex, a little man, a werewolf orgy, a shootout in the middle of the night, some dark rituals and cheesy special effects all over the place. If you think this is even remotely thrilling or sexy, you'd be wrong. It certainly is funny, though.

"Howling II" has the most hilarious closing credits I've ever seen. It's just a sloppy compilation of the previous scenes, where you'll see Stirba ripping her own clothes off over and over again, for like 20 times. Wow. I guess this was the director's favourite scene? On a more positive note, the dark rituals are eerie enough and the shootout at the end is kinda okay. And Christopher Lee is epic as always.

Still, at the end of the day "Howling II" is an insult to the original. (And that's saying something.) At least the first part endeavoured to tell a serious and more or less intelligent story. The second part is pure schlock trying to capitalize on its violent and "sexy" scenes.

After TV host Karen White survived an encounter with a demented mass murderer, she suffers from nightmares and panic attacks. In order to recover, she travels to the countryside and joins the so called "Colony" – a community of mentally ill people. At night she hears the howling of wild animals, and she becomes more and more stressful. The members of the Colony seem to hide something. But what is it? (Psst! It has something to do werewolfs!)

"The Howling" has some nice ideas and cool special effects, but it pales in comparison to John Landis' iconic horror comedy "An American Werewolf in London", which premiered in 1981 as well. The last third of "The Howling" is pretty entertaining, though. There is a suspenseful chase, a shootout and bit of gore. But you'll have a hard time taking all of this seriously. It's just a bit too sleazy and plain. Some scenes are trash-tastic: werewolf sex, yay! The sequence where a man transforms into a werewolf is epic: The special effects are impressive and scary up to this day.

The most interesting part of "The Howling" is its ending: It is cynical and genuinely funny. Other than that, unless you are a horror buff, there is no good reason to watch this over "American Werewolf".