Reviews

I am fed up with movies that rely on spectacle instead of interesting concepts, that are loud, crazy and have nothing to do with science, but are just fantasy with a sci-fi veneer. Flash is to date one of the worst offender of this trend.

There is a limit to how much a grown-up person can suspend their disbelief.

But that's not the only problem. Flash starts as a clunky, funny nerd who is also introverted. How does that make sense?

You would think that after going through dramatic experiences, including the deaths of friends and millions of people, he would grow up a bit.

The action sequences in the beginning are over the top, unrealistic and visually obvious CGI. I was already bored with the movie after 30 minutes.

But it gets worse. We are in the 2020s - how can anyone in our (or a similar) reality think that changing the past is a good idea (ok - Dr. Strange and Spiderman did it too, but that was also stupid).

The confusing madness goes on. Superman becomes Super Clara (which was actually not bad). The Old Batman is one of the few highlights - but his path could have been developed more.

It seems that the movie had a bunch of lazy or sleeping screenwriters. It was terrible.

If this was the first attempt to make a Flash movie, it would have been bad - but forgivable. But compared to the 90s mini series and the TV series of Flash, this movie is a convoluted mess.

This show is binge-watch worthy. I discovered it, but then really fell for it deeply.

The storytelling is compelling. Not everything is revealed directly. It is also quite interesting how nightmares and dreams revealing the past...

The grit is quite right.

But here I the thing, while it portraits well the "life in a kitchen" there are also quite some issues.

For example it is never revealed, what kind of kitchen the restaurant really is. There are no waiters or servers - but it seems also not a pure sandwich point. Huh? Nobody even seems to manage front of house.... There are also basically never visual guests.

And eventually the last episode makes even less sense... how could the passed brother have kept so much money hidden - even though he could not pay his taxes, his suppliers etc.?

Lest alone the part, that after the ecstatic, they produce so much food, which literally is not possible with the space and supplies they have.

And in reality - even though there are very realistically conflicts in the kitchen -often there are even more conflicts with the servers...

So yes - there is definitely an issue with the reality here. However the family story and the feeling of work feels really right.

Unfortunately the season is also far too short with too short episodes.

There will be a long wait until the next season - I guess.

Thor: Love and Thunder.

Once upon a time there were Marvel movies which mostly peaked the interest of upcoming movies. Could it be that Love & Thunder has this trait?

This Thor movie could be almost seen as comedy. I am sure, that it is one of the most family friendly Marvel movies - we are jumping from joke to joke and from pointe to pointe.

What is missing though is a bit of realism - and even though there is sufficient drama, it seems that this never comes to the consciousness - and we can never be losing a tear (ok there are moments - but they seem to be not earned - because mostly the movie is getting almost undeserved to this point).

The whole Olympian spiel is also very strange - and doesn't fit into the story, previous Thor (and Marvel) movies have set up.

Suddenly we learn (very easy - and noncommittal, that there are those Olympian gods - and apparently they seem to be far more powerful (strangely before Odin - but also Thor were plenty powerful - even moving a quasar blablabla... - but now we learn - hey there are also Olympians. Why did Thor not tried to ask them for help against Thanos? Because he might have forgotten their existence...

Even the Villain - seems to be "undeserved". Yes he looses his daughter due to cruel gods. But the species seems to be not special at all... so how can he fight suddenly against "gods"? And: alone the point, that there are "many gods" in many cultures is a bit odd to learn.

And I still don't understand the difference between a god and a superhero or villain. Maybe because these "gods" seem to be mythical? I hate, that this movie goes this way, because previously (especially in the first Thor movie) it has been "technology" used in a different way... now it is just mysticism.

So no - I already see, my review is not a review but a.question of the integrity of Marvel.

I slowly start to feel tired to go into new movies, and learn how Marvel extends its universe - obviously for the sake of profits.

So another android movie.

Here the movie goes a bit of another route. Is it fresh? Nope - it reminds me very much on "A quite place" - except that humanoid robots (and drones) are involved.

Look - it is very strange - it seems that the story of the movie really happened in a "vacuum". There are no older models of androids (which look not as humanoid). There are no UAV's or other AI devices - except of some quadcopters. Hence it is pretty strange - the whole thing is a set up for a "drama movie -with some action elements).

The acting is more than decent - but as said, the story has no meaning and no real direction. It is just "out there".

So this young couple, is finding their way to the Boston harbor. To catch a boat to Korea - which seems a save haven... And a lot of stuff is happening, that the boyfriend in the story looses his legs. The enclave is then stormed by androids because of "pregnant girlfriend" no clue, why they weren't thoroughly checked... They killed the androids in the vicinity due to a (singular) EMP. So they have to catch the boat, and eventually they find out that the Koreans take only babies (not even the mothers).

So they decide with heavy hearts that they give up the baby to give it a chance in life.

Then in the next shot, you see girlfriend alone -without crippled boyfriend... What happened? Did she gave him up, even though he has risked his life for her (and lost his legs for her)?

No explanation.

I could live with that anyway. IF the movie would have some deeper meaning. But it doesn't.

Why are the androids killing humans? Where is the motivation? No answer.

I am searching desperately for answers - but there aren't any.

So the movie-technical points are done well enough. CGI is ok. Acting is mostly good.

But there are so many script inconsistencies, that it really hurts. For example, people have to be checked, if they are human. But then apparently android have (sometimes in the movies) some blue illuminating eyes. Why? Dramatic effect I guess. But it is not logic.

If you are looking for a science fiction movie, where there is a deeper meaning (e.g. Like iRobot) - don't even think of watching it. It is a typical (flat) movie, which has a villain (androids) - and some kinda heroes. And a lot of people in between.

Painful to watch.

As said in the title - since a rather young age, I have been drooling and nerding about fighter jets.

The first time I have seen the original Top Gun, I haven't been aware of what is realistic and what not. Yet even with this knowledge the original stays one of my favorite action movies - truly there are no particular great aviation movies out there..

But did Top Gun Maverick improved on the original? Yes and also no...

First of all - yes - the movie is just objectively better made. The flight scenes are absolutely stunning - and there are even mostly realistic planes flying (all of the main "protagonists'" planes are real types - not talking about the MiG-28 from the original movie). Except maybe the Darkstar.

The problem is: there are also really massive issues.

One is lazy writing. So kudos for Maverick to mention, that the F-35 would be the ideal airplane for the "main story mission". But lazy is, to take it out because of "GPS jamming"... really? It could be so easy to say, that the F-35C didn't achieved combat readiness before the mission... or something along these lines...?!

But overall - the F/A-18 has nothing what the F-35 cannot do - maybe just, the experience of the SuperHornet sets it apart of the Lightning II.

Then there is the issue that nobody really wants to say, that it is Iran. But Iran is the only country which still has F-14 Tomcats. What they don't have yet though are Su-57.

And the whole "Felon" characteristics is simply nonsensical. The Su-57 doesn't really exist - as serial model (only about 15 demonstrators where produced - of those 15 - 2 pre-serial models - at least one of those has been destroyed. It is absolutely fiction, to expect that the Su-57 could be used for anti-air defense - especially not of Iran.

Also the SAM defense could not be worse. You don't need to have every few km the same anti-air defense battery (one or two S-400 which look totally different are more than enough - plus maybe some short range systems).

Also - the whole missile "thing" makes no sense. First: using "flares" against ground to air missiles which are normally seeking with radar makes no sense. Second: if a missile is close - there is no way you can avoid it with fancy maneuvers. And where is the enemy AWACS? If it is such a high value asset, there should be a form of AWACS... oh - and then: there would be definitely detection - even if the planes would fly very low.

This makes me sad - because defending against air defense systems or against other aircrafts are far more like playing chess than than a "dogfight". With good writing and good cinematography it would have been possible to really catch the tension and the techniques a fighter pilot would use. But because of "action movie" - fantasy totally took over.

So all action scenes were breathtaking - but like a Harry Potter attack. "Movie magic".

Aside of the technical details: the "personnel" things were also not realistic. And focusing on dogfighting in the first "days" of training, while the mission mostly needed for ultra-low level flight? WTF...

I do think, with a bit more input of real fighter jet pilots and ex-military conductors, the movie could have been far better.

Instead of the "magic" Su-57, they could have used Su-30. This is a fighter jet Iran apparently really procured.

The whole mission could have been far more realistic. No need for this "villain lair" in the middle of a volcanic crate.

And to be honest: why should the Pentagon ask the Navy to do the job? If the target is so high value, a USAF B-2 Spirit could enter the airspace without the enemy having a chance of detection - and it would have far more payload.

And even further - if the Navy anyway attacked the runway near the high value target - why not using loads of cruise missile to destroy the target?

Some realistic S-300 or S-400 could have been used. And yes - the F-35C would have been also sexy - instead of the workhorse F/A-18 (let's face it - both the Super Hornet and the Lightning II are workhorses and not as sexy as the Tomcat in its time. But the F-35 is at least very modern and at the edge of technology - similar to the Tomcat, when the original movie came out).

So no - the movie doesn't make any sense of a defense standpoint. This is sad, because the strategies and techniques are extremely interesting.

So... did I enjoyed Top Gun Maverick? Yes for sure. Like an Avenger movie. If you turn off your brain, it is perfectly fine entertainment - with a slight dash of propaganda.

What just makes me sad is: that it could have been just far better. But Hollywood is Hollywood I guess - and we are living anyway no more in a subjective reality?

So Patterson as Batman... I wasn't exactly concerned. But the news, that. He refused to work out (and buff up) - was more a bummer...

But hey.- Reeves is a good Director and they will make a great movie...

A good movie it is. But it wasn't (at all) a Batman movie. It would have been probably infinitely better, if Reeves would have made the movie from the Riddler perspective. In fact, it sounds like a fantastic idea, to make a movie which is from the "Batman prey" perspective. A lot of criticism I have might have disappeared...

Anyway lets just talk about the great stuff: the cinematography is fantastic. Everything is cut perfectly, the color gamut is broody and great, the costumes (maybe except of the Batsuit?), the scenery. All has been done fantastic.

Even better was the Riddler. I must say, I haven't been especially impressed with his "costume". It works, but there is no real context. But overall the Riddler is fantastic - and at a certain scene he is for sure dominating a scene with Batman. Absolutely great.

Oh - the Penguin as crime bossling. Great stuff. Colin Ferrel really hit hart with his portrayal. It is one of the roles, which were absolutely mesmerizing, because it was not Colin.. it was the Penguin. Probably next to "Les Grossman" (Tom Cruise) in Tropic Thunder, one of the best conformations.

Zoey Kravitz has been also fantastic. Not a typical role as Catwoman - a far more grounded version. She is sexy without being over the top. Strong without being unrealistic. Great stuff.

Felix Leiter - sorry Commissioner Gordon is also great. Maybe for few minutes a bit awkward but overall fantastic.

And even Patterson was good. A bit emo - but in some scenes he really could really show the pain he endured due to the death of his parents. Maybe in this moments, he would be better than any other Bruce Wayne before.

The story - it is not another amajgeddon - it is "just a believable" terror attack by a psychopath. This is also believable for me.

So why only 6/10?

Let's start with the last point: I had the feeling, that the story was a bit too much borrowed of the Zodiac Killer mixed with Saw. Lacked a bit originality.

Also: Batman supposed to be the "best detective" here. But really he isn't. The scene which I have talked about above: Where Riddler confronted Batman, that he overestimated him? I had exactly the same feeling. It seemed that Batman was pretty good in solving "riddles" - but not really a good detective at all. He exactly followed the path what Riddle laid out for him.

Another thing: strength, weaknesses, power-scaling - lets face it: the Patterson Batman would be already dead: there is no particular gadgets (...) of his suit, which can explain, why dominates. He also doesn't show a particular fighting style, strength or craftiness when fighting. He is also not smart when interacting with his environment... what do I mean? The Bale Batman had gadgets and Ninja training. The Affleck Batman was more brawn - but had also gadgets and used the element of surprise (sans the ninja). Even the Keaton Batman had the same combination of surprise and gadgets.

Patterson is walking into the scene. It is just not believable. Especially as he is just a twig. This apex' in the scene, where he is affected by Riddlers bomb!

The Batmobile is equally nonsensical. It seems to be a rather good idea (sans the jet engine) as a Baja racer. But for urban "car chases"? What were they thinking?

At the end the narrative of this movie (every criminal is afraid, when they see the batsignal) and the movie reality don't come together.

If he disrupts crime, why don't the criminals not just get him into a trap? This Batman would have no chance to get out of it.

Maybe Patterson was more a "Domino Batman" (Lucky Girl from Deadpool)?

But this is not really the batman I want to see.

What though made it even worse is the lack of connection between Gothams state and the corruption of the wealthy. All was there in front of our eyes. But the conclusion hasn't been presented. I was hopeful - maybe in any way the movie just showed us, that the system is bad - capitalism is bad (...) - but when we almost could smell this conclusion, Reeves pulled the rug away from under our feet and concluded: Riddler crazy, Batman good, oh - and a Joker is coming.

The last point is maybe the most upsetting point. Maybe Bruce Wayne could have become the real hero. Fighting against corporate and legislative corruption - Batman helping him where there are limits to the bureaucratic way... that would have been different...

...I found Joker just such a master-piece and thought that Batman could be the same. Batman however himself showed himself as shallower than skin-deep. It is an enjoyable movie. But for me, those movies, which had the chance to be great, and just missed real greatness are more upsetting than the movies which are underdogs.

I have been looking forward to Foundation since I have heard, that they film it. Asimov Foundation series is one of my favorite reads of all times. Not necessarily due to his brilliant writing - but because of his grand ideas about science, society and the human race - and eventually the cosmos.

While the show translates the "Foundation world" far superlative than any of Asimov's writing, it strangely lacks the philosophical part.

While the books insist, that the whole arc is based on math and science, the show almost puts "the science" on the side and pushes makes the protagonist (Harry Seldon) to a sociological manipulator. This is probably my least favorite part of the show.

A great addition - which is not in the book at all is the genetic dynasty. This is a fantastic philosophical idea and it works very well in the show - even though it divides the show even more from the books.

Last but not least Dermezel - and the way, robots (androids) are presented in the show: that is my second least favorite. Apparently the two "robots" are reprogramed (which is on basis of Asimov's books also pretty impossible).

Independent how the story arc goes - it won't be as significant and impactful as the books describe them.

Overall: maybe because I have read the books, I found the Foundation show not boring. A bit disorienting - for sure. Sometimes low paced. But what is missing (and some shows deliver far more of it) is the discussion of grand philosophical questions - which is the writing of Asimov all about.

But it is anyway really entertaining for me.

In a time, where science fiction fans basically watched ALL good science fiction movies and series, it is great to see some new high quality content coming out.

However... at this point, I am worried, that the show is unconventional in the making (some people might be bored and annoyed, by too much character development (...)) - but it lacks uniqueness when it comes to the science fiction content. What I mean, it is again the same - aliens attack and invade earth (not yet really seen 100% - but it is in the name).

But yes - the style is a fresh breeze - even though it is sometimes quite muted - and even borderline boring.

Even though- the acting is really great by everyone. Also the craft of the filming is great - hence you are really immersed in the happenings of the series.

But my problem (which I have with almost every single movie): I like to see the motivation of the aliens, the difficulty to reach earth - and then the justification, why going through all the trouble to reach earth.

I like to see new concept of lifeforms - and whole new concepts of technologies. I want to be wowed by the sheer creativity of the screenwriters (and the author of the original book).

In this light, I have little hope, that Invasion will meet my expectations. For me it is not science fiction - but in this case: a drama in a slightly science-fiction'y environment (same as the MCU is action/fantasy in a science fiction environment).

But apart of this: the overall drama is good - and the whole mystery of the events all over the world are interesting enough to keep you watching.

This was long in the making - and the duration which we have to wait for it almost lead for a overpromising scenario... but: spoilers- the movie is great!

First of all the stuff I didn't like: science: I have been happy that the Craig relaunch of Bond has been more grounded: but really? Nanobots as weapon of mass destruction? It is unreasonable, illogical and kinda spits into everybody who is remotely able to think. Also- two miniguns behind the headlights of a tiny Aston DB5? Where is the ammunition coming from? And wouldn't it be crazy just to shoot everything 360° around the car? And who could even survive this?

Then there is the Aston Valkyrie in Q's workshop... really? This car would make any sense as undercover vehicle?

And the villains island? It is just too much (with the poisonous garden and all).

Second the villain- the story is told a bit convoluted. It is not that it is a bad performance (it is brilliant)- nor that the villain is bleak- but his motivation is not clear.

Third- the new 007- she is cool and she is badass- but I feel that her character has been widely underdeveloped. Would be great if she could proof to be a better 007 in future?

The good stuff: Daniel Craig is really good. So is the acting of everyone. The story is interesting - the action is great.

It is long - but the best thing is- that the unexpected happened: James Bond dies! Well- at the end at least; but that is bold. I hope that the franchise is going to be continuously bold and don't bring back James Bond (as clone, or face swapped, or whatever) - but there will be a completely new persona.

Anyway - I could not remember that I have enjoyed myself more in any other Bond movie. Casino Royale was great - especially for fans of the Books. But No time to die goes far beyond that.

I don't get it. Sure - this Suicide Squad is better than the previous ones. It is bright, violent, crazy and surprising.

However I don't get the overly positive reviews, when previous reviews were far less enthusiastic.

Pacing of the film is pretty good - and while it feels reasonably long, it doesn't really become boring - this is probably to the unexpected movie deaths of side characters - even by important supportive roles.

But there is one issue, which seems to be always missing in Suicide Squad: a realistic motivation. Sure, they all deem to die, when they don't follow the rules and desert and sure - there is additional pressure on some of them. But don't anyone realize that they are portrait by "normal people" who are just a bit more crazy?

Violence is random - and just portrait absurdingly funny!

My problem is this: the Suicide Squad supposed to be disturbed and sick people. People who don't have an issue to kill people. But also who might celebrate their disconnection to normal rules. There is a cool Jaguar ad around since some years: "It's good to be bad" - but this is missing. Again everything seems to be a joke. Also: danger seem to be a joke. If the characters would be portrait as sick and psychotic alas miss their sense of self preservation, it would be ok. But again - it seems to be a violent comedian. Club in this movie.

And the boss villain is also disappointing - yes Suicide Squad tries to say, that the US government is responsible for that - and that the Starfish just intended to float in space. But it is not even clear what the starfish intended to do... Sp yes - a good movie, which doesn't have too many technical flaws. But the movie is equally problematic and lazy, when it comes to script and character development.