Change Your Image
schaefer.oliver
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Battleship (2012)
Dumber than Transformers 3 but a little more entertaining
This kind of "Transformers on water" movie is extremely dumb, filled with every conceivable cliché, populated with cardboard characters, filled with laughable and nearly pain-inducing dialogue and leaving even the least bit of logic deep under the ocean. Nonetheless it's more entertaining than the annoying "Transformers 3" in a "so bad it's good" way. Sorry, Universal, next time please think about paying one or two of your 200 million bucks to a decent screenwriter. And to Peter Berg: I can't believe that you once directed the superb "The kingdom" and after seeing this dumbfest I'm really glad your "Dune" project didn't got off the ground.
The Messengers (2007)
a boring waste of time
I have nothing good to say about this production, except the decent score by Raimi's old pal Joe LoDuca. On every other level this one fails miserably and it's beyond my imagination, what Sam Raimi found so interesting in the script or the story to produce this. Nothing here works and every horror cliché one can think about gets served. Wooden acting from everyone is OK for me, if the story and suspense works. But here it adds to the general boredom of the whole thing. Sad to say, but it's on the same level as Raimi's other productions like "Boogeyman" or "The Grudge". They made some money but were equally full of cheap thrills and empty of any kind of suspense. Hey Sam, you made "Evil Dead" and "Darkman". Even non-horror "The Gift" was a lot scarier than this clunker. Can't you start producing movies on an equal level or do you just reserve the good scripts for yourself, like your last one "Drag me to hell"?.
Defiance (2008)
A profound failure for all involved, especially director Edward Zwick
Wow, I never thought that I would ever mention Edward Zwick's name and the word "boring" into one sentence. Since "Glory" I always looked forward to the next film by this director. Yes, his films are of a varied quality, but they were always highly entertaining (Legends of the fall, Blood diamond), sometimes even thought provoking (Glory, The siege, Courage under fire). Going into a Zwick film I'm expecting something bold, big, pathetic (in a great cinematic way), great set pieces, fine music and fine camera-work...something that carries me away into the movie.
So what happened here? This film has an interesting premise, but the execution is a very long and very slow and very uninvolving bore. Cardboard characters, villains that look so obviously bad it's nearly laughable, bad staged action sequences and not an ounce of suspense. The fact that this is based on a true story makes the failure even more disappointing. And one more thing I never saw in any other Zwick film: This one looks cheap, to put it mildly. It looks TV-cheap, the sets, the one and only tank, the handful of German soldiers... Hey Ed, you made the spectacular, great on all levels "Glory", also a true story, also more of a drama than a war movie. Everything that works in "Glory" fails in "Defiance". I hope this is one misstep and that your next movie will have all the qualities I like so much in your films.
The Golden Compass (2007)
is there anything more annoying than a fantasy film starring kids and talking animals?
Is there anything more annoying than a fantasy film starring kids and talking animals? I don't think so. This movie was pretty lame and I'm surprised that some dumb clerical guys wanted to start a boycott of this movie. Maybe the books were more critical about religion and the church, but nothing of that seems to have find it's way into this movie. First, I hate cute children in leading roles. Second, I hate talking animals in leading roles. Third I hate it when top talent like Kidman and Craig is only there for a few minutes. The screenplay was a mess. Lame, uninteresting, without any suspense and worst, without any sense of wonder regarding the fantasy environment. This movie is the perfect example of too much money going into the visual effects (which were very good) and too less money going into a coherent and plausible screenplay. Even Kidman, Craig and Eva Green leave no lasting impression. The only highlight is a very fine turn by the always reliable Sam Elliott. And the most annoying part is the end. That's it? Talking for the last five minutes about all the things they have to do in the next movie? Are you kidding? This is no total disaster, but if they might move on with a second movie, which is pretty unlikely regarding the box office, don't count on me.
Beowulf (2007)
Good film but I don't get this motion capture technique
Well, if this had been made as a live action feature, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. To me there's no sense in using motion capture instead of live action. OK, the director seems to think that he may have more freedom with camera moves, art direction and the aging problem, not to speak of using the not very slim or athletic Ray Winstone (who I really like as a live action actor) as the hunky hero. The only exception may be the 3-D part, which I wasn't able to see. But I'm pretty sure that this could have been made for the same amount of money as a live action feature with lots of CGI. In "Beowulf" I haven't seen anything that wouldn't be possible in live action/CGI. The dragon? Look at "Reign of fire" or even "Dragonheart" and "Eragon". Complicated camera moves? Look at "The Matrix" and "The lord of the rings". Art direction and production design? Again, look at "The lord of the rings", "Troy" or "Gladiator". And instead of Ray Winstone (Sorry, Ray) I'm sure there are enough athletic actors capable of this role. To me, the motion capture versions of Hopkins, Malkovich, Gleeson and their colleagues were distracting during the entire movie. The only really good and realistic looking face was that of Angelina Jolie, which sometimes seemed to not really be "overpainted" at all. I'm wishing everyone involved in making this film the very best, but I do hope that this movie won't recoup it's costs and that motion capture will be relegated back to making creatures like "Gollum" or "Grendel" possible, but not making entire movies using it.
Hostel (2005)
Dumb, boring and amateurish on nearly every level
Being a fan of horror movies all my life, this was a big disappointment on nearly every level. The story was unbelievably dumb and the movie dragged on a very slow pace for nearly an hour, before the action starts. The look is totally amateurish, the make up effects are a throwback to the Italian gorefests from the eighties. There is no single shock in the film, the blood and guts I expected are also absent. OK, there is some gore but nothing spectacular and not very much, except you call a few body parts lying around and a few puddles of blood as gore. The was not a single bit of suspense in the whole movie but a ton of dumb coincidences making me shake my head. I feel sorry for the talented Jay Hernandez being in such a mindless and boring movie. Whatever Quentin Tarantino saw in this flick, I can't find it. I gave Hostel a 2 because Uwe Boll and Rob Zombie make movies even worse than this one.
Apocalypto (2006)
Good film hampered by the use of an ancient language and the use of subtitles
First, it was another good film directed by Mel Gibson. Second, what the hell are the critics writing about excessive violence and lots of gore? This wasn't anywhere near the level of violence in Braveheart used and it wasn't even as gratuitously bloody as Gibson Passion of the Christ. Third, for me after Passion of the Christ it's the second time Mel Gibson made the wrong decision regarding the use of an ancient language. I can understand that decision from an artistic point of view, but for me, it distances myself from the movie and it's protagonists. I watched both films with great anticipation but the use of subtitles and ancient language barred me from feeling involved or developing anything like compassion for anyone on the screen. In both cases it was like watching a kind of documentary. It's just distracting from what goes on above the screen. I'm totally OK with subtitles in a film like maybe Dances with wolves, where there's an English speaking man who can't understand the native Americans, but in a movie where everyone speaks the same language, except the audience, where's the point? The movie looks great. Fantastic locations and production design, great photography and editing. Especially Dean Semler's camera is fantastic. The mostly unknown cast does a great job, especially Rudy Youngblood, who may be someone to watch for in the future. So I hope, that Mel Gibson makes his next movie something I can understand without subtitles, so I can become more involved.
House of 1000 Corpses (2003)
Surely one of the dumbest 10 films I've ever seen
This is clearly one of the dumbest films I 've ever seen and surely the dumbest I've seen this year and that's only because I haven't seen any Uwe Boll disaster so far this year. I'm pretty sure a real zombie would have made a better movie than Rod Zombie did. The story is completely laughable, the characters...well...what characters, there's no suspense and there are only lame shocks and so on. With the exception of the make-up FX everything else was just uninteresting and unbelievably boring and annoying. By the way, I'm sorry for Karen Black for having to make films like this to make a living. And to the director of this abomination I can only say: Welcome in Uwe Boll territory, Mr. Zombie.
The Omen (2006)
Good remake but where's the point in remaking it?
Actually, this is one of the better remakes. It's quite entertaining and creepy, has a great cast and one of the most eye popping beheadings I have ever seen. Beside that, where's the point in remaking a classic like Richard Donner's 1976 version. Apart from the visual effects, there is nothing the remake can improve on. Instead of this, you realize what an important part of the first one Jerry Goldsmith's music plays in setting up mood and suspense. Marco Beltrami's score may be good for those who don't know the original, but it is nowhere near the impact of the first. The cast ranges from effective to good and Mia Farrow is great in the Billie Whitelaw role of Mrs. Baylock. Production values are good and the camera-work is fine (Only one of those dumb jittery hand-held sequences which I hate from the bottom of my heart!) and overall it's a great looking film. All in all, there's nothing to be ashamed of but there is also nothing to congratulate to. Maybe Hollywood should better concentrate on remaking bad or mediocre originals like Amityville Horror, The hills have eyes or Texas Chainsaw Massacre instead of films that still deliver the goods, even after 30 years. Or what about some original ideas....
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Too much in too little time
This was an entertaining movie and no one has to be ashamed about it. But there happened too much in too little time. Being nearly half an hour shorter than the second installment, all of the character development had to take a backseat in favor of the big set pieces and FX sequences. There are a lot of new characters but they are only receiving a third rate treatment. They rush by with such a speed that I don't even remember most of their names which is a pity because some of them have much potential, like Ben Foster's "Angel". So this is the rare movie where less running time is the biggest problem. In most cases, whether it's a sequel or a stand alone movie it's just the opposite. The most recent example for an excessive running time is Ron Howard's "The Da Vinci Code", which easily could have been trimmed to 125 minutes. Where that one has to much exposition and explanation, this third X-Men movie has way too little. All in all it's a good and entertaining movie with some major flaws.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
One of the best King adaptations
I love every King novel (except "Insomnia`, which was so unbelievably boring that I still think it was written by someone else) and I hate nearly every movie or TV adaption of his books. Exceptions are "Carrie`, "Cujo` (despite the bad ending), Stand by me, Misery, Dolores Claiborne and most of all David Cronenberg´s Dead Zone. First of all, I really liked "Dreamcatcher`. It wasn´t a great movie, but I had lots of fun while watching what was going on. This is a big and expensive B-picture which crosses various genres. I think that´s the reason why it´s such a big flop. There´s simply too much of everything for a lot of people. The script was very faithful to the novel, so most of what I liked in the novel was also in the film. Some things came too short, but being condensed out of a book with more than 800 pages, something had to go. The scenes in Jonesy`s mind library were absolutely great. The acting ranged from ok (Freeman and Sizemore) to good (Lewis and Olyphant) to great (Jason Lee). John Seale´s camera was fantastic. Editing and music were good, as were most of the FX. What I really disliked was the ending, turning Duddits into an alien (using the worst CGI-FX I´ve seen in a long time) was a really dumb idea. While the execution of the scenes in Jonesy´s mind was so wonderfully realized, I don´t understand, why they didn´t used the books conclusion for the movie. But tampering with a books ending seems to be a hobby for Hollywood screenwriters. All in all this is one of the best King adaptations. It has it´s flaws, but it´s very entertaining, scary, bloody and funny and deserves much more success at the box office.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
One of the best King adaptations
I love every King novel (except "Insomnia`, which was so unbelievably boring that I still think it was written by someone else) and I hate nearly every movie or TV adaption of his books. Exceptions are "Carrie`, "Cujo` (despite the bad ending), Stand by me, Misery, Dolores Claiborne and most of all David Cronenberg´s Dead Zone. First of all, I really liked "Dreamcatcher`. It wasn´t a great movie, but I had lots of fun while watching what was going on. This is a big and expensive B-picture which crosses various genres. I think that´s the reason why it´s such a big flop. There´s simply too much of everything for a lot of people. The script was very faithful to the novel, so most of what I liked in the novel was also in the film. Some things came too short, but being condensed out of a book with more than 800 pages, something had to go. The scenes in Jonesy`s mind library were absolutely great. The acting ranged from ok (Freeman and Sizemore) to good (Lewis and Olyphant) to great (Jason Lee). John Seale´s camera was fantastic. Editing and music were good, as were most of the FX. What I really disliked was the ending, turning Duddits into an alien (using the worst CGI-FX I´ve seen in a long time) was a really dumb idea. While the execution of the scenes in Jonesy´s mind was so wonderfully realized, I don´t understand, why they didn´t used the books conclusion for the movie. But tampering with a books ending seems to be a hobby for Hollywood screenwriters. All in all this is one of the best King adaptations. It has it´s flaws, but it´s very entertaining, scary, bloody and funny and deserves much more success at the box office.
Below (2002)
The better "Ghost Ship"
Sometimes I wonder what the people at Miramax/Dimension were thinking about some of their movies. This is another example of a movie that was put into a few theatres without any marketing push. Other victims of this strategy have been Impostor`, Equilibrium`, Texas Rangers`, Buffalo soldiers` and some others. Here in Germany I haven´t been able to see any of these so I can´t say anything about their qualitiy, but yesterday I had the pleasure to see David Twohy´s Below` on the big screen. The opening of this film surprised me, because after it flopped in the U.S. I didn´t expected an opening in Germany. I found this very suspenseful with an interesting story and a fine cast of familiar faces. The twists and turns hold your interest throughout the picture. The film has great camerawork and fine FX. The story mixes parts of U-571` with the recent Ghost Ship` and is far superior to both pictures. It´s obvious, that this wasn´t made on a big budget, but that seems to have been good for the movie, because the filmmakers concentrated on the story and the suspense instead of any FX extravaganza, which is sadly often the case today. The movie isn´t perfect but it was absolutely worth the price of the ticket and deserved a far better handling than it got from Dimension Films.
The Core (2003)
The better Armageddon
Amid all those bad reviews and given the fact that Michael Bay´s Armageddon is one of the worst movies of all time, I didn´t expected very much from this one. I had some hope for this movie, because Jon Amiel also directed the wonderful "Sommersby" and the great but underrated "Copycat". The cast was as good as it can be in this kind of disaster movie, especially Stanley Tucci as Zimsky, who clearly had lots of fun with his role. The rest was ok. The camerawork was excellent, the film has some fine FX, especially the space shuttle sequence, and it unfolded at a good pace. To me it didn´t seem to run 135 minutes. Obviously logic isn´t something you should look for in this one, but most of the scientific and technical details can be swallowed, except for the material the "Virgil" is made of. Do I have to say "Unobtanium"? I laughed out loud, the moment Delroy Lindo took this word in his mouth (Watching this film in Germany, most of the other people in the cinema didn´t get it, because in the dubbed version they didn´t translated this word into german). All in all I really enjoyed this movie and can recommend it to everyone who likes this kind of popcorn flicks.
Enigma (2001)
Boring and uninvolving
Well, the book wasn´t very good and the movie isn´t any better. Both were boring and predictable. You don´t care for Tom Jericho and his colleague, played by the fine Kate Winslet, who is the only delight of the whole movie. Composer John Barry deserves a special mention for recycling his scores to other movies again and again. This one is another example, where you can tell after 3 notes, that Barry was the composer. For all the big time talent involved, from director Apted to writer Stoppard....shame on you for this one.
Windtalkers (2002)
Cage proves again, he´s the worst actor working today
To me after MI:2 this is another flawed and inconsistent picture by John Woo. The story isn´t very interesting and centers on the wrong character, while it should have centered around Ben Yahzee instead of Cage`s Enders. And it shows again, that Nicolas Cage is the worst actor of the current $ 20 million club. His range consists of 2 1/2 facial expressions and in this movie he shows only 1 1/2 of them. He´s unbelievably boring to watch. Every moviegoer knows that everything he sees is acted, but when you think "Boah, is that badly acted" while watching the movie, you definitely have a serious problem. So to me Cage is the main problem of the movie. The other big problem is the uninvolving and annoying story. There is not a single surprise in the whole movie. Everything that happens is obvious long before it happens. The only merits of this movie are on the technical side. The camerawork is good, sometimes excellent. The visual FX are fine and Kevin Yagher´s special make up technicians must have worked overtime, but all that isn´t enough for a movie, where every minute of it´s running time can be counted. This is definitely no "Private Ryan", which was a lot longer, but felt a lot shorter than this semi-failure. Back to the roots, John Woo, and please do it without Nicolas Cage.
Spy Game (2001)
Intelligent and highly entertaining spy thriller
After "Crimson Tide" and "Enemy of the state" this one is another high quality thriller from director Tony Scott. Fast paced, witty, well written and very entertaining. Fine performances from Brad Pitt, Catherine McCormack, Stephen Dillane and especially Robert Redford make this film a real highlight. As always in a Tony (or Ridley) Scott film, other highlights include the inventive camerawork and editing and a fine score by Harry Gregson-Williams from the Zimmer-Factory. The whole movie reminded me of Sydney Pollack/Robert Redford spy-against-his-will-movie "Three days of the Condor". Although the situations in both movies are vastly different, the proceedings, the tactics and suspicions within the CIA are similar. And it's just great fun to see Redford outmaneuvering everyone else.
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Still my No. 1 movie
Even 21 years after its release, this is still my No.1 movie. Big, brutal and bloody, watching this movie is still a great experience. The visual effects are not up to date, but otherwise it hasn't lost any of it's power over the years. This is the only John Milius film I liked from the first to the last minute. The look is great, it has phantastic camerawork, superb production design and a score no other composer has ever come close. Composer Basil Poledouris has never composed anything nearly as good as this rousing and sweeping music. Even his music for the sequel was a letdown and sounded as if they slashed the number of musicians half the size of the first recording session. The fight sequences are fantastic and include some stunts that preceded today's "Wire-Fu" by 20 years. The story and the way it is told is also great, primarily because of the little amount of dialogue in the film. Everything is transported through the music and the camerawork, so that there are no more words necessary to let the audience know what is going on. So for me this film succeeded on every level and I hope that if "King Conan" really materializes, that it will be true to "Conan the barbarian" and will let anyone forget "Conan the destroyer".
If These Walls Could Talk 2 (2000)
Fine stories, fine acting
This was something I wasn't really interested in and watched just because of the fine cast. An I was very surprised, how moving, funny and involving the three stories were made. But my respect goes to the actors who all did great work here, especially Vanessa Redgrave, and Sharon Stone (what's up with her, are there no roles anymore in Hollywood for her??), who both gave performances that to me were absolutely natural and unforced. A true surprise to me was Ellen DeGeneres, who is nearly a nobody in Germany, but who I saw last year in another surprising role in "Goodbye Lover". All in all a thoughtful and yet entertaining piece of work.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
...and they still have careers
Compared to this bomb, I think about changing my votes to some other stinkers one or two notches up. This movie is bad from start to finish. The only decent scenes are the FX-sequences during the final battle. Everything else was simply unwatchable. What's most surprising on anyone involved with this dub is that they still have ongoing and/or rising careers after this one. "Director" Roger Christian has made something called "The outlaws and the starship Redwing" (IMDB-entry as: Starship), which I actually saw in a theatre in 1985 and guess what: It`s nearly as bad as BE. So Mr. Christian may be one of the worst director´s working today, but he is at least dependable. And he must have something going for him, because he is making a new movie, this time in Mexico... Barry Pepper did *61, Knockaround guys and We were soldiers afterwards, Forest Whitaker is directing something new and John Travolta is still going on to cash in one big paycheck after another. And most amazing is the fact, that there still are rumors about Travolta's wish to do a sequel. So what´s left is one of the worst movie´s ever.
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
Strange story, strange movie, fantastic cast
This was a strange little movie with a strange story, but with a fantastic cast. James Woods and Kathleen Turner (why didn't she get more roles??) were fantastic as the uptight and old fashioned parents of the 5 virgins. Also a fine turn with a bad wig from Josh Hartnett as Trip, who has only one thing in mind. And another surprising role for Kirsten Dunst. I still don't know if I like this movie (I gave it a 5), but certainly it holds my attention until the end. With lesser actors I'm pretty sure that this could have been a misfire, but with this cast it is an impressive debut for writer/director Sofia Coppola (who I hated in her role in "Godfather III").
Straight Shooter (1999)
Surprisingly entertaining german thriller
Surprise, surprise. It seems as if with Thomas Bohn there is a german writer/director to watch. The movie may have some flaws and inconsistencies, but looking at lots of terrible other german movies, this is a real milestone. Usually german movies are not that entertaining, look at another failed attempt to create a thriller, Dominik Graf´s "Die Sieger", which more and more became a kind of drama during it´s running time. This one has a cool look, great cinematography and editing, and fine actors like Dennis Hopper, Heino Ferch (who really looks like Bruce Willis) and Katja Flint. Some points of the story are not very believable, but still this is the only german thriller that has a professional look and feel and thats a lot more than most of the german movies have.
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
What an unbelievable bulls***
This was surely the worst movie I`ve seen so far this year. No story, lame sets, bad visual effects, bad acting and Simon West has proved, that he may be good at commercials, but has no sense of making a decent movie.
His first film "Con Air" was a dumb movie and "The general´s daughter" was based on a fantastic novel by Nelson De Mille and a screenplay by William Goldman, so this one needed no direction. Nobody could have made that a bad film. "Tomb Raider" is clearly an expensive C-picture and the only good thing in it is Angelina Jolie, who is extremely talented. She was also the reason not to leave the cinema during the film. After ten minutes I thought that this movie must be the unofficial sequel to another clunker "The Avengers", which had the same problems. The whole atmosphere of the movie was very sterile. The story was paper thin, which is something I didn´t care about when everything else is ok, but that wasn´t the case here. The sets were so-so and the visual effects reminded me of the effects in David Lynch´s "Dune", but that movie was made in 1984! What is shocking about this is the fact, that the FX were made by Mill Film and Cinesite who also made the FX of "Gladiator" and "Event horizon". The editing was also bad and I asked myself if it could be true, that editor Glen Scantlebury was involved in the elegant editing of "Bram Stoker´s Dracula" or if he edited this one in his sleep. And what about the score by Graeme Revell? A movie of this scope for me requires a big score, something like John Williams´"Indiana Jones"-Scores, but no electronic mishmash meandering along through my ears. The big weekly downturn at the boxoffice seems to indicate bad word of mouth and that´s what this movie deserves. Ok, here we are with a big nothing, filled with unbelievable bulls***. Let´s hope that this is the first and the last "Tomb Raider" or call a real director for a second time.
Mission to Mars (2000)
What a stinker
Once upon a time there was a director, who was my favourite director because of his suspenseful and visually stunning movies. What´s left of this director is his visual style which is still intact and still fun to watch. This director is Brian De Palma and I loved every movie from Carrie to The Untouchables. I even liked Raising Caine. But obviously Brian De Palma has lost his hand for good stories (see Mission Impossible and Snake Eyes). I feel sorry for everyone involved in this movie, except cinematographer Stephen Burum, who was as reliable as ever, and the visual effects team, which created some memorable images (which unfortunately does not include the bad design of the alien creature). Speaking of this alien, this whole section of the movie was nearly unwatchable in almost every aspect, e.g. the creature design, the bad acting of Gary Sinise, the dumb dialogue and the unremarkable finale. The entire good cast was wasted in this terrible story. They also often looked as if they didn´t knew how to act in a certain scene because maybe they didn´t even knew what this scene was all about. Just look at the first sandstorm sequence, where they all acted as if there was no dangerous situation. The listed screenwriters also have written movies like Speed and Predator, which have been great action thrillers. And Ted Tally (Scripter of The silence of the lambs) who is one of the producers, surely also contributed to the script, realized that this was a big mistake and removed his name from the screenwriter list. Anyway, they all must have been unconscious while writing this dumb stuff. Ennio Morricone has composed some great soundtracks over the years (all Sergio Leone films, The mission, Casualties of war, The Untouchables) and he also has composed some scores that are assaulting your ears (Hamlet, Frantic, Sahara). This one falls in the latter category and is extremely nervewracking and distracting from the images on the screen. This music is absolutely the worst I have heard in recent years of watching movies.
I can pick a lot of other people and several other scenes but this leads to nothing more than what I have already written. This movie is a complete failure for everyone involved and especially for Mr. De Palma, who after the failures of Snake Eyes and this one will have to make his next movie a hit, otherwise he may have a hard time getting another big budget job. So, do whatever you want with your time, but don´t even think about watching this movie !!
The Shining (1980)
A piece of c**p
This is nothing more than a big bad overblown egomanical piece of c**p and surely the worst film by Stanley Kubrick. And it´s also one of the worst adaptations of a Stephen King novel, because there´s not much left from the novel.Jack Nicholson is crazy from the beginning. There´s nothing of his gradual mental downslide, which made the book so effective and full of suspense. Shelley Duvall´s acting consists mostly of wide starry eyes and stupid screaming. Only plusses of this mess are the production design, the camerawork and the music selection. Anything else on screen is the big ego of the late Mr. Kubrick and that is not very watchable and not very entertaining.