Reviews

This version of "The captain of Köpenick", a play by Carl Zuckmair, is the one that stays the truest to the original play. The plot is simple: A poor cobbler, Wilhelm Voigt, is released from prison. Now he is caught in a vicious circle. He can't register without employment, and he can't find work without a registration. His worsening situation leads to another short imprisonment. During that time in jail he learns how to act like a military officer. At the same time, we follow the story of a captain's uniform, which starts with being tailor-made to being sold to a second-hand peddler. There Voigt sees the uniform, buys it and then walks into the mayor's office of Köpenick to confiscate the treasury and get a passport. In the end he is caught.

The whole movie is excellently played, especially Platte as Vooigt. He surpasses the much lauded Rühmann and Juhnke, who played the same part.

OK, first I admit, I love this movie! That said, i wonder about the strong hate-critics this movie got, even here on IMDb. Some criticise the shallowness. Hey, it never intended to be a drama that teaches us a moral lesson. It even sets it straight, from the beginning, that it touches the meteor-crashes-on-earth subject way more unrealistic than movies like Deep Impact or Meteor, which are surreal too they just pretend to be more realistic.

Some critics said that great actors were wasted in small, insignificant roles. Well, first, no one forced these actors to take the roles. Then some, like Duncan or Wilson, were not at their peak back then. And I must say that even Owen Wilson's role (the most insignificant in my opinion) has its highlights. And some roles (esp. Affleck's and Thornton's) have more depth than in other popcorn movies. I find the general acting level quite strong, considering the type of movie. Of course we have seen deeper performances from Willis, Duncan, Stormare, Buscemi and Thornton, but those were in other genres.

Some say it claims only the NASA and thus the USA could deal with any crisis....well this is an American movie. And the USA are still the biggest movie market. I guess that if this movie would have been made by a Chinese company and filmed in China it would show China as the superior nation. One critic here claimed that the movie showed only blond white American kids rejoicing at the meteor's destruction. As I recall it this is plain wrong. Celebration all over the world is shown.

I find this movie quite entertaining, which is the ultimate goal a movie should aim for. It may have some weak moments, but it is just so cheesy and pushed beyond every reality that it becomes funny, tense and emotional. I especially love the scenes of the Affleck/Tyler relationship which are sweet, romantic but not too cheesy. Foremost the goodbye scene with the rendition of "Leaving on a Jet plane".

So...if you can enjoy an entertaining movie which never pretends to be intellectual and is solidly made, watch Armageddon.

First things, I find this one of the best movies about the great story of Alexandre Dumas, and luckily it sticks quite true. Quite, but not totally. I understand minor changes like Porthos not being the shallow, large framed guy described in the book (I always will love Depardieu from Man in the iron mask in this role) or d'Artagnan witnessing the hanging of Mylady de Winter, even the "with a rowboat across the channel" thing, but.....

WHY ON EARTH DID THEY HAVE TO PUT DEMONS IN IT?

I think Mylady de Winter would be as interesting and rewarding role to get? Why does she suddenly have to have Superpowers? This is the only real issue I have with this movie.

The rest of the movie is splendid. Except for Porthos, who's actor does a fine job after all, all the cast is close enough to the book as possible. Especially Elbaz plays d'Artagnan with that vibe and risk-loving panache he appears to have in the book. This is one of the few movies which does not alter or skip the musketeers' dealings with Buckingham, in fact it sticks to the novel with the sole exception mentioned above.

As to the ongoing discussion of Beart being too old: a) She looks gorgeous as ever. b) Mylady de Winter is described in the book as a Lady in her late thirties...so why the fuzz. After all, she married athos at age 20, got hanged after a year, became the Cardinal's (a great Karyo) top spy in the meantime, married Winter's brother, killed him ....you see she was quite busy all the time.

So I can sum up: A great rendition of the musketeers' legend with just a bitter pinch of story liberty.

8/10

There are some legendary heroes, whose stories you can tell a hundred of times and every time it is different. There are the three Musketeers, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and of course Robin Hood.

In the history of movies are so many adaptions of this legend and each is different in what style and atmosphere they set the piece.

There f.e. is the flamboyant, tight wearing Robin of Errol Flynn (and Cary Elwes), who takes his life as an outlaw with jest and humour.

There is the avenging Robin, out for revenge to some slights done to him and/or family and friends like the Costner Robin Hood.

There are some, really trying to help the poor while having some fun and laugh at the cost of the ruling government as in the Disney cartoon version.

There are many differences in the opponents who are battled by Robin, though the Sheriff of Nottingham is the constant one. There are sometimes John Lackland (King John), Guy of Gisbourne (in the legend he is only a mercenary quickly disposed and then impersonated by Robin) and others.

This version looks at it a new way. They show a country divided into an anglo-saxon populace and norman ruling class. Only a few saxon nobles exist. One of this noble families are the Hodes. Though Robert Hode is normally a friend of his norman Baron, Daguerre, a visiting norman nobleman insists on Hode being punished for some slight offense. Pride Hode does not comply and flees. Thus he is being outlawed and his family stripped of title, claims and life. This way his fight begins....

The look of this movie is the darkest and bleakest Robin Hood there ever was. The forest looks not friendly, many scenes play at night, and the merry men get real dirty (unlike the Flynn Hood). The story behind the whole movie may be the most "political" ever, because of that division of being saxon or norman.

The acting is very good, in my opinion it even supersedes the Costner Robin Hood from the same year. Especially the three leads (Bergin, Krabbé and Prochnow) are great. But down to the smallest role you get fine acting.

The swordfights (as another commentator mentioned, real swords not rapiers) are really nice to watch and the finale...well, you better see it for yourself.

All in all, if this movie runs on TV or is available on DVD, get it.

Well, my summary may not be my most inspiring but it is meant wholeheartedly. First, I love "Rocky" and all of his sequels in their own way. I find it a great film and itself and the sequels show the "Hollywood spirit" during the years.

Let us watch Rocky unbiased. The storyline in itself is a bit shallow: A Nobody gets a chance to fight the champ, he does it and wins his girl friend during the movie. The End. As I said shallow.

But what Stallone did with this plot is amazing. He added many twists and turns to create a whole new plot. Instead many other Underdog-Sports-Movies, the underdog here is not a brilliant new talent or fallen-once-famous star but an average, down to earth bum like many of us know their whole life. Rocky is a bit of an idiot (we learn he is dyslexic in Rocky 2), but has strong own personal morals and thoughts. He is a bit of an Outcast, too. We see him with his sole friend Paulie (who seems not to be a real close friend) and the girl he adores, Paulie's sister. Adrian is too shy to even notice that Rocky adores her, which makes her an outcast too.

The next twist Stallone adds is how this Nobody gets the title shot. It is not because the champ notices the talent or has revenge plans....It is mere coincidence of the original opponent having an injury and Creed now has to look for someone to fight on short notice. Since the fight is at the 4th of July he makes the genial decision to create a media hype by giving an unknown a title shot. And he only chooses Rocky because of his ring name "The Italian Stallion" ("Apollo Creed versus the Italian Stallion, sounds like a damn monster movie.")

Then comes the film sequence of the training and all the story in between. Stallone walks here the fine line between a sports movie and a character development movie and he balances it superbly. We get to love this nerdy couple with all their all-to-well-known, ordinary troubles. We even learn to sympathize with the drunkard Paulie. And the training sequences are so great, the song "Gonna fly now" will always be engraved mentally to such training scene montages (as it itself or similar sounding copies are used up until today).

Last in the movie is the fight. Many have commented on its unrealistic appearance. Hey, it is played by two actors, who, though being athletic and even college/pro-athletes, never were boxers. And though they trained with a boxing coach, they lacked the money to do it extensively. So they scripted the fight step by step, blow by blow. And then they rehearsed it. This is quite an accomplishment. And to me, the fight looks as well as some you see in today's actual rings.

A word about the acting. Stallone shows here (like he does now too after leaving his action stardom behind) that he is quite a talented actor. The supporting cast is great, from heavies like Meredith and Young (both doing great scenes here, Oscar-worthy) to then unknowns like Carl Weathers and Thalia Shire.

The production is great too, thinking of the limited budget.I was fascinated by the camera work, which is better than many big-budgeteers at that time. If you love well made and emotional gripping films, who may have a bit of sports thrown into it, you definitely will love "Rocky". As to my statement that the sequels are documentary of how movies in their time were like, read my comments there.

I have to admit I never read the Grisham novel, the movie is based upon. The other comments say it deviates far of the novel, so I am happy about that fact. As a man who reads a lot I am almost always disappointed by movies made after a novel. In reading the book, you form your own picture in your head and can't fathom why the movie director made changes.

So I am happy to judge this movie unbiased, as a juror should. This fits, because that is what the movie is about, the manipulation of a court jury. The American jury system may be the most fair (because it does not let "one man have the power to hang or not hang anyone he dislikes") but also the one most easily manipulated. How this is done is shown nicely in the movie. One side (the defense) uses surveillance of possible jurors even before jury selection, choosing mostly jurors they may get some kind of leverage on. This ranges from knowledge of an escapade of a female juror to buying the market store another juror works in. The prosecution uses just personal impressions, coupled with some psychological schooling during jury selection. A third party (Cussack) tries all to manipulate his way into the jury by pressing all the right buttons on the judge's patience. The manipulating goes further into the trial, even using illegal blackmailing tactics.But at the end is a twist.

The story may be a bit thin sometimes. Some think that a bit more detail should have been invested into the trial itself, but you forget that this is a film about the jury duty. So it focuses more on the things happening in the jury room, the hotel the jury is sequestered to and the manipulating team of Rankin Fitch. What I have to criticise is, that the court scenes shown are flat and flawed with argumentative holes big enough for a steam train. That should have been reworked to fit more into an otherwise very smart movie.

The acting is great through all the roles be it major or minor ones. I especially like the obvious bonding of Cussacks character and the second Latino juror after Herrera (I don't find his name). But all roles have their shining moments. Overshadowing the acting are Hackman and Cusack in my opinion with Weisz giving them a run for the money in many scenes. Hackman is at the top of his game, but I consider Cussack up to it. He may not be an expressive actor like Hackman, who uses all of his body, voice and mimics to act. Cussack is more a subtle actor which I like about him.

A mostly clever plot, some good editing, great acting...you see why I like this movie. It has great suspense and while not reaching the same level as "12 angry men" it is still showing a nice view on the jury system.

This is what an intelligent and entertaining Spy movie should look like. And I don't mean the "Super-Spy" genre with its gadgets and sly wit. In contrary. This is a very clever plot using many time and space spanning scenes. In short it revolves around a young CIA agent (Pitt) who tries to rescue his one time asset and then beloved (McCormack) from a Chinese prison. He gets captured and will be executed a few days later. 24 hours before the execution the CIA learns from his capture and, a presidential visit and trade talks ahead, decide to burn the rogue agent. They contact his recruiter and mentor (Redford) to fill them in on the young agent. This he does. Between these flashback scenes the senior agent uses all his wile he gained as a field agent to set his protegé free. The plot twists several times in unexpected ways and the tricks Redford uses in his scheme are simply great. The fine scene from "Clear and present danger", where Ford tries to outsmart his fellow deputy director are but a mere faded memory from this scheming. The directing utilizes modern fast paced cutting and editing, but mostly in scenes where there is action. Unlike many other movies using these methods, here it enhances the film instead ruining it (I regret watching the otherwise great movie "Man under Fire"). Speaking of action, if you expect an action packed spy movie like the fore-mentioned "Clear and present danger", you'll be disappointed. The only shooting involves a bunch of soldiers (first Vietcong, later on US Marines) and is only mere background. Most of the suspense is created verbally and the movie is filled to the brim with adrenaline rising suspense. The acting is very strong, especially Redford and Pitt, which seem to have developed a great chemistry. Having worked together before may have helped. But Redford definitely dominates the movie. His scenes are more than intense and when he unpacks his most dangerous weapon, his smile (in the scene when the nasty superior thinks he has nailed Redford) it is most memorable. I think this is one of his strongest acting. Summary: If you read and like intelligent thrillers from authors like Forbes, Le Carré or Nichols you might already have devoured this gem of a movie and if not, go and get it.

I write this after watching the movie on German TV. I first saw it somewhat around 1993/1994 and was impressed by it. I had just left my teenager period back then (being born 1974) and could still relate to many issues of it. The story is about a shy kid, new to a small town in the backwoods of Arizona, with no friends. Being a talented writer but too shy to speak openly, he used other ways of expressing himself, utilizing a short-wave emitter to pump his own radio show in the air. He talks about the inhuman politics of the local high school, whose dean was only obsessed with her grade record and not the kids. Many teenager problems get mentioned in this movie, which were important back then and will be as long there are teenagers. The problems of being not understood by the parents or other adults (teachers), the problem of dating, loneliness, homosexuality, free speech and suicide. The movie does not patronize or try to impose any opinion on any of these issues (maybe except suicide). The acting is superb, i count it to be one of the best Slater movies. And the supporting cast is excellent. The obligatory love story is played so sweet and shy that you have to love it. Slater and Mathis fooling around the next day after their first kiss (which is memorable in its own way) is so awkward and sweet like any fresh teen couple.

I only give no full 10/10 because of some bad editing and i find the clothes not always correct to date.

Let's stop arguing whether this film is true to the book (it is not straying as far as other literature-based movies, but it strays)or if it is ultra-patriotic (I think the main message is just a message of hope and that is universal) or if is underrated or not by the critics.

Let us just look at some points: First and foremost, what drives this movie, the message. Imagine living in a country, torn and devastated by war and plague, not knowing if your relatives or friends are alive or dead. You just live huddled in small hamlets and isolated from the outer world. Naturally that isolated hamlets without hope can be easily dominated by well trained bandits and outlaws. Now imagine someone coming who brings news from other villages. You hear from your sister you believed to be dead, from your daughter, who you did not see the whole time and so on... Suddenly life is not so dreary anymore. "Stuff's getting better, everyday", to quote the movie. People now have hope, and this hope leads to unity, and unity leads to standing up against oppression.#

THAT is the power of the written word, and it is also the main message of the movie. "Stuff's getting better, everyday"

To all other movie parts like acting, directing, photography and so on, I find the movie solid to absolutely awesome in some parts The only thing I am not so happy about is the whole plot about the old ex-soldier. I did not read the book, but I think this character is getting some background and importance there. Here you could cut out all his scenes without missing anything. And though the ambush on the Elvis patrol seems to be his planning, the situation and the whole ambush is such a logical tactical development, that even a former shipping clerk (the postman) could have thought of it.

All in all, i love that this one is a post-apocalyptic themed movie without all the despair and depravity all other movies in this genre have. This is a film about hope and the power of hope, clad in a bit pro-American and sometimes cheesy scenes. I can only recommend the movie.

After reading most of the comments on this film, I feel relieved. When I saw it the first time in cinema, I really liked it, so I persuaded some friends o see it too. They were disappointed. All others I talked to about this film were not liking it too. I thought I may be the only one to find it a brilliant, deep movie but here I find more of my kind.

What makes the movie so outstanding in my opinion, is the fact that it is none of Hollywood's favourite genres...in fact it can't even be categorized to one genre or two. Adding to it there is no small criticism about today's comedy and entertainment culture and how our modern society treats people not fitting in so well.

All this is wrapped in a more than bizarre story about some mystic elixir hidden in wax eggs,french mariners, American comedians, family secrets, a long lost glamorous time of vaudevillian entertainment and two guys on the search of their role in life.

One is Tommy Fawkes (Oliver Platt) the rising star of stand up comedy, son of a comedy great. Overcome with self doubt and after getting his spotlight stolen by his father, he begins looking for the heart of comedy in Blackpool, England. Many may not know this, but Blackpool, like Brighton, was once the center of cabaret and varieté culture in England. Platt delivers a great performance (I should say as often, because that he does) as the self-doubting comedian, who thinks he cannot be funny anymore.But what he lacks in comedian talent, he has in social talent. He is a natural leader and charismatic person.

Then there is Jack, a guy who is born to a family of entertainers, too. He is a natural comedian, in such an extreme that he cannot interact with society on a normal level. He has somewhat of a dark past, but that gets apparent during the movie. Jack is played by Lee Evans, and this boy is FABULOUS! Look at his Radioman performance and tell me you did not laugh...i call you a liar.

Both actors are surrounded by a more than strong supporting cast including Jerry Lewis, Leslie Caron and Oliver Reed.

Together with its almost hauntingly sublime and beautiful cinematography this film becomes a very clever and deep movie about character development.

My advice: Rent it, see it and make your own opinion. You may be disappointed, since this is not a movie for everyone. But if you like it, you will appreciate it the more.

Well, it's time to make a stand for this gem of a sports movie. Many have criticized its non-surprising plot, its football scenes and the accent. I want to say I have to defend and protect this movie from such attacks. 1) The Plot: Hey it is a sports movie and I have never seen a movie of this genre which is not 100% foreseeable. After all, the fact that here David does not win against Goliath may be considered a relatively fresh idea in a genre, where it is usually exactly the opposite.

2) The football: I come from Germany, a country where they love football (especially me). Of course the movie shows only clips from the games. Hey there are 4 cup and 3 championship matches covered in this movie. Of course they could not be showed in full length (The final game alone would be 130 minutes plus the penalty shootout). The scenes shown are not better or worse than those you see in any match summary on sports TV., so it feels realistic

3) The accent: I think I have read in the IMDb that Robert Duvall is an American actor...so why arguing over his accent? Of course he sounds from real phony in the early shot scenes to almost nailing it in the later ones, but all in all he does a better job at sounding like a Scotsman than many other actors who tried and failed before (esp. Mel Gibson in Braveheart). More important is his acting and in that Duvall delivers a brilliant performance. He very reminds me of my great uncle who is a football trainer in Elgin, Scotland.

That to the most criticized aspects. In short, I love this movie for its realism (and such David Goliath myths happen in football, believe me) and love for detail. So I advise everyone to watch this with an open mind. The film is neither a realistic documentary about football nor is it an epic sports drama, but it never aspired to be one...

My tip: rent it and watch it...you could do worse.

I bought this movie on DVD, because I am a big Bud Spencer Fan and want a complete collection. I did never expect much from this, so I was very happy, to be more than satisfied.

Spencer plays a somewhat renegade catholic priest, with strong concerns about lower-class youth. He is transferred to a small parish in Sicily, where his main task is as a priest in a youth prison. When a murder happens in the prison and a 16 year old boy seems to be guilty, the padre starts his investigations. Together with the commissar and the attorney he struggles with the fear of the common people and the local crime lords.

The plot is not the most original or creative, but it is solid and, after every aspect is known, without huge loopholes.The few action scenes are realistic and not overblown. Even the three small fistfights Spencer gets into are just small and short. The only drawback is, that the story seems to be hurried. You think all the investigation takes just 3 days, while it is much longer. Some footage of normal life would fill these gaps, but that's the problem of every TV-production.

It is not the most clever or exciting thriller, but it is good and solid TV-Craftsmanship, and never claims to be more. The acting is quite good, especially the young actors.

I will not advise that you have to buy this movie, though you could do worse, but if you have the chance to see it on TV or by video rental, do it. You will not be disappointed.

First I have to state, that I'm a great fan of thrillers, especially one containing a clever conspiracy (You know how rare it is to find a CLEVER conspiracy in movies). This is one of my favourites. I like the whole cast, especially Patrick Stewart who delivers a great (I think one of his best) performance as the slightly cracked CIA psychiatrist.

The Conspiracy in this movie is not a world threatening or out to gain world domination. It is a former CIA project to train the perfect killer. Now the psychiatrist responsible for this project has gone renegade and uses his killers for the most bidding.

Jerry is a NY taxi driver and like any of them a little bit crazy. He is a firm believer in his many conspiracy theories. Somehow he seems to stumble over something, because suddenly he is targeted by CIA kidnapping and murder attempts. His sole ally in some way is district attorney Alice Sutton, the woman he loves more than anything. She's the daughter of a murdered judge.

During the movie are many escape scenes in which Jerry almost every time succeeds due to clever planning and weird genius.

I like that, though containing many action scenes, there is not a lot of over the top shooting and exploding going on. Most action scenes are escape based involving running, hiding and driving.

Add to this the superb cast, the clever plot and some crazy (but agreeable) conspiracy theories and you know why I gave this movie 8/10 stars. My advice: Rent it, buy it, watch it!

Yeeeaaah!...This is definitely one of my Top 5 Favourites. Why? OK lets expound. First, the camera and editing. It's fabulous in my opinion. Fast paced, but not too fast,with great scenic shots. I don't like the modern MTV-Style of editing with its fast cuts and sweeps. I like it a bit more subtle. And this is done here. The scene at the watchtower for example, esp. the moment when the camera lingers a moment on Banderas, when he is looking for the mist. Great! Second, the scenery and production design. These guys should be very proud. Apart from one type of armor (Helfdane the fat), which is a bit too modern (It looks like a Spanish Conquistador-Armor), all look very neat and stylish (As a Live-role-player I have to say, I envy Bullwyf for his cloak). The weapons look real and authentic too. The buildings in the village and the great hall look like original replicas they have in Scandinavian museums. Third, the cast. Perfectly cast through all roles. My personal favourites are Diane Venora as the Queen, Sven Wollter as King Hrothgar and Kulich as Bulwyf. But all the others deliver peak performances. Last but not least is the script. I read the book "Eater of the dead" before I saw the movie. I liked the story and used it in several P&P RPG-sessions but after the film...whoooah. They took all, that is possible to put in the movie and made that movie. Personally, I rate the movie better than the book...no, not better, more entertaining, since the book is more of a documentary.

First to say, I like it, but.... ...there are some details I can't quite forgive. Though there are many liberties taken with the original book (the whole Siam and China Episodes,the Vanderbilt yacht etc.), I'm mostly concerned with the figures of Passepartout and Fix. The first seems to me to be too much comic relief and less substance. The Passepartout in Verne's book isn't as fixated on women as Idle's character. Additionally, Idle's acrobatics don't look like the moves of a circus artist, which Passepartout is. The second character striking me as odd is Ustinov as Fix. From Verne's book you get the image of a dedicated, well-trained and resourceful detective who is only hindered by the necessity of an arrest warrant.He certainly isn't the whining, moping, overweight fellow as he appears in the movie. Don't get me wrong. I like both actors' work, especially Ustinov's, but I think of it as inappropriate and not in conformity with the book. Aside from this, you can do nothing wrong in watching this movie, especially with children.

This is REALLY the most underrated German movie of the last years. It centers around the first Amateur World championship outside Japan in Riesa, Germany. Riesa is, like many formerly East German areas, a very poor city with high unemployment rate and so on. In these circumstances Bruno Nestroy, unemployed railway worker and "a bit" overweight, is talked by his scoundrel friend (Oliver Korittke) into participating in the upcoming championship. They get a trainer, a German who owns a Japanese restaurant and wants to be Japanese, and marvelously qualify. By the way, Bruno overcomes his self-doubt and shyness and gets a girlfriend (also somewhat of a lovable loser, but with a strong will).

The story may sound a bit flat and simple, but the director made it working and, along with the wonderful acting (esp. Korittke and Orbeyi), makes a wonderful movie. But the thing what fascinates me most, is the eye for detail. The people, down to the smallest part, are casted as if they were taken just out of real life, like it is in Riesa and other German cities. The warm and human tax collector, the superficial and insensitive bodybuilding disco owner, the slightly off-worldly bank manager and so on. Even the stand where the two main characters always seem to eat sausages and fries is like any you find here. This grounding in reality makes the film so extraordinary.

The Sumo is good, as expected by a movie where the Amateur World champion is the fight trainer and choreographer. He even plays a small part as the other German fighter in the final championship. Also that many other Sumotori were participating gives the movie another level of authenticity.

All in all, if you like human and character driven movies, understand a bit German (I don't know how good any translation will be), try to look for this movie. It is worth every second spent watching.