Change Your Image
Bitoque
Reviews
Chappie (2015)
Don't be fooled!
I'm writing this as an admirer of District 9 and good cinema!
Unfortunately, Chappie is neither. The film was actually so bad, that it became involuntary funny at points. The story is basically about "what happens if you mix the 2 scripts of Short Circuit and Robocop, throw in Yolandi and Ninja from the group Die Antwoord and then turn it into one of the most misguided films of the last 5 years"...or even more. The story is so thin, it should have been made into a short film and maybe it wouldn't have felt as forced. The characters are ALL 2 dimensional, besides Yolandi and Ninja who just play their stage characters anyway. The only actor actually trying is Hugh Jackman, but even he is helpless against sloppy writing. The film has some funny parts, a lot of involuntary funny parts - basically every time Chappie opens his mouth - and the worst character in the whole film is played by Dev Patel. He seems to be the protagonist at first, then gets written out of the script, just to return at the end. His lines to Chappie are by far some of the worst/ funniest lines of dialog in ANY film. For the first 5-10 mins. the film actually felt, as if it was going somewhere - besides the blatant Robocop rip-off, including a 1:1 replica of ED209 - is this still a reference or did they just not give a damnß - but then it was obvious that this patient couldn't be helped. And I think its here that lies my harshest criticism - they didn't even try this time. When reading the script, someone must have said: "this is bad". During filming, someone must have involuntarily laughed at the dialog - but even if both of this didn't happen: someone in the editing room must have told Bloomkamp that this is just really, really bad filmmaking. But they released it anyway, as if they thought, they'll eat anything nowadays. Well, the cinema in Berlin on a Friday night was not even half full - which is very bad, considering the film just started this week. Apparently you can fool some people some of the time,... I only give it 2 stars, as I did laugh a lot at this mess and therefore wasn't bored - but we all felt a little more stupid coming out of the screening. Again, as Bloomkamp did make the brilliant District 9 a few years ago, there might still be hope that maybe one of these days he'll get it right again - but that's what we kept saying about M. Night Shyamalan, right?
Fubar II (2010)
Enjoyed that!
I'm a big fan of the original, so naturally i was quite sceptical going into this film.In a lot of sequels the characters are being exploited for the sake of gags and to disguise a lack of story. in this case it was the opposite, because the story here feels much more prominent and thought through than in part 1, which is a good thing. it took a while to get into at first, but as soon as the 2 start their new job, i really started to enjoy this film. the characters (especially "Tron"), atmosphere, development and especially the finale really drew me in and made me laugh out loud. it also pulls it off to be really funny and a feel-good movie at the same time, without ever feeling forced or cheesy.the "more than a feeling" scene had me in tears (of laughter).
not even sure, which one part i like better now - maybe because i've seen the first one too many times already. good job - i give it 7,5 out of 10.
Picco (2010)
What were the motives again?
Just saw this film at the Camerimage Festival in Poland. I don't know what angered me more, the fact that they made us watch 30 mins. of unjustified torture, or that the director managed to screw up this film, even though he had a good DOP, (mostly) good casting, real locations and a true background story. first of all, if you shoot a film in a real prison, that means you want authenticity. so why not achieve this, by also having the actors improvise a bit, instead of making all dialogue sound like it was scripted by an 18 year old, who has seen Alan Clarke's "Scum" a few too many times. this made some of the scenes, especially the ones with "Frau Schmitt" seem like a TV soap drama, rather than a hard hitting prison film. I think this was extremely unfair to the main actors, who seemed to try their best, but, with the exception of Frederick Lau, all seemed unbelievable to me. Next, if you make a film about something that's so horrible, that we can't understand it, don't just show "What" happened, show "Why" it happened. I've never seen a film, in which the motives for something so cruel and disgusting were just never given at all - maybe "Saw". But it seemed to me that the filmmaker had the goal to make the people reflect, but if there's no motive, then the deeds become just "Evil" (brilliantly used in Funny Games) and unexplainable. the only goal someone will achieve by that, is to make us hate and fear these people even more. but isn't that the job of the yellow press? i thought a filmmaker's job was to raise questions and not give answers, if making a social commentary. i'm sure, the director's comment would be, that to leave these motives out, makes us think about it more - well, if you make all characters involved, 2 dimensional, then thats not very likely. and last but not least, if you copy a brilliant director like Alan Clarke, look at how he did his films first, and his motives to make his films. don't just copy people! I give it 3 points for the camera, Frederick Lau, and because i liked some of the extras, but will withdraw one for the terrible last 30 mins. i found it especially disrespectful, not only for the audience, but for the victim of the real crime. So don't believe the hype! this film is mainly just bad filmmaking! cruel only to the audience, his actors and authenticity. It's like someone who wants to be Haneke, but made Saw 6. Good Night And Good Luck!
Bis es kracht (2009)
awesome
the best film i've seen (last week)!!!! but seriously, nice little short - a comment on the finance crisis and mass lay offs. great camera, good acting, nice script and cool sound. and all for a tiny budget. filmed in and out of Berlin. road movie meets funny games meets Brandenburg. plot: 2 ex-employees have revenge on their old boss,by showing him, in their own little way and driving him out to the country side for their own little cat and mouse game, that today you're unlikely to get anywhere by just following orders. since in the end, the final decision is always in the hands of the ones with power. isn't it!? watch it and make up your own mind!
The Firm (2009)
Bollicks!!!
first of all, the original firm is impossible to top, to start with - so why remake it in the first place?
this film is predictable, as is the message, but its also boring! i gave it 3 stars for the music, the cool clothes and that danny dwyer wasn't in this one (probably turned it down though)! nick love should have just tried and make a documentary about firms in the 80s, instead of remaking the same film over and over again. in my opinion, the only reason why he made this film is so that he could keep all the denim in the end. they should have made a film about the German world cup, when lots of frustrated wannabee hooligans started beating up each other when there was just no one to fight with...I'd like to see that!
please no more films about guy-love by nick love! thanks
Niku Daruma (1998)
what the....
just watched this "film" and it actually made me want to write my first comment on IMDb.com, even though i've been a user for more than 9 years. the reason that i watched this, is because i like splatter films and sometimes i like to test my limits and see what actually still shocks me. first of all, the gore in this film didn't shock me, not even the idea that someone came up with this and made it into a film - what really shocked me, is that there seems to be a market for this kind of crap. don't get me wrong - i'm all against censorship, but this film seems to me like it was made for some kind of fetish crowd that seems to get off on this type of sh*t.it didn't give you that same kind of disgust and guilt that one felt after watching films like "august underground". that film is terrible to watch, but at least you get the feeling that the filmmakers want to show you how disgusting violence is. in the case of "niku daruma", it seems like it was made strictly to arouse people. i prefer films that shock, because they are well done and thought through, like Gaspar Noe's films, or Takashi Miike's, or Funny Games or Man Bites Dog - those films will stick with you for a while. this film i will have forgotten by tomorrow, and the only thing that will stick with me, is the thought, that somewhere out there, there are people getting aroused by watching this sh*t. if you read this, please check yourself into the next hospital or shoot yourself - this of course does not apply to gore hounds, who just love splatter. you're cool! peace
Irréversible (2002)
Irreversible when you have those images in your head!
After being dragged to watch "Seul Contre Tous" (Noe's previous film)by a friend one afternoon, I found myself disturbed and very angry after leaving the cinema. It was only 5'o clock but my head was really screwed up for the rest of the day. "Thank you very much Mr. Noe for showing me these darkest parts of a soul" I thought. "But why?" But I couldn't deny the intensity. The funny thing was that even though I wouldn't consider watching that film again, I couldn't stop thinking about it. So when I was told that "Irreversible" was showing the following week and that it would be even harder to watch...well I went anyway.
But after seeing "Irreversible", though it still disturbed me, I started admiring Noe's approach to film, more than it's loud message(Violence is violent, rape is bad? Yes,I know!).
The movie shows the events that follow a rape in chronological reverse time(like Memento). But why is that movie so disturbing? Of course showing a woman being raped and then brutally beaten is shocking enough, but having the camera view this scene for an unmercyful 10 minutes, actually makes us part of it without being able to do anything. Like in Michael Haneke's "Funny Games" we have to ask ourselves, why don't I just leave (Haneke said: "Whoever leaves doesn't need my movie!"). But compared to "Funny Games" where the actual act of violence isn't shown, only heard(which i'd consider nonetheless powerful), Gaspar Noe grabs us by the neck and pushes our faces right into it. Even if we don't want to. His approach is defenitely more hardcore and unmercyful. But it's actually working. It makes you much more angry (something i'd defenitely consider Mr. Noe to be). I think less than actually portraying a rape scene and the events that follow, Noe wanted to point the finger and show us, that a violent act can't be justified, but also that we all have the potential in us to act violent(that's why it's Pierre-the character it's most likely to relate to-, not Marcus, who kills the man in the beginning/end). SPOILER:I think everyone who's seen the film really wanted to see the Tenia(the rapist) get killed( I know we shouldn't think that way, but..). So realizing that he actually got away, while at the same time having to witness the rape scene (this is when the backwards telling of the story makes sense), knowing that the brutal(justified?) act at the start of the film happened to the wrong guy, really makes you feel helpless and angry. It's that feeling that combines both Noe's Films: "I'm really down and p***ed off, but what can I do to make it stop?". After the rape the film gets much softer, but the bad after taste is always present. When the film ends, the violent scenes are not as present anymore and you don't feel as disturbed as when walking out on "Seul Contre Tous", which has it's climax at the end, but nonetheless helpless and angry (but also relieved). I have to give respect to the actors for those long uncut scenes and realistic acting (especially Monica Bellucci) and to the director for the way it's filmed (yes we can barely see anything at the beginning, but it helps portray the confusion, anger and disgust of the main characters)and the setup of the immensely long scenes(genius). But there are things that could have been left out, without losing the intensity of the film, and just seem to make it more sickening and sensationalizing (why did he have to sodomize her??, why all those sexual acts in the background on the party or in the gay club??). If you want to break taboos do it so it makes sense! Especially since I consider sensationalist films like "Baise-Moi" a load of rubbish! Well at least it must have helped the film's mouth to mouth propaganda: Have you seen that film where....? It is defenitely not an amazing film( I now consider "Seul Contre Tous" the better one of the two), but a very, very powerful one! In my opinion, there are good films that are nice to watch (e.g. Amorres Perros), then there are films that provoke (e.g. Happines, Kids) and then there are films that are a real challenge (e.g. Funny Games, Gummo and Irreversible). The last section I'd consider: DEFENITELY NOT FOR EVERYONE! You don't have to like them, but you should defenitely not deny them.