Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Smog (1973 TV Movie)
10/10
Suffocating atmosphere
18 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Just like the pollution portrayed suffocates the people in the film, so does the films general atmosphere - dark, dirty, I was almost gasping for air. From the beginning, the filmmakers don't mince images about pollution, skies darkened by industrial exhaust, cars covered in dark, sticky fallout from unfiltered smokestacks, the acid in the air dissolving nylon stockings. Looking out of my window today, its hard to imagine that this film was shot in my general area, that such events actually happened on several occasions where I now live, once even in my lifetime (though I don't remember it, I was only three). The film's point, as I see it, is well made: pollution affects us all and we all have to change our behavior to do something about it. While there is an emphasis on how heavy industry is to blame not just for causing pollution but also for ignoring the problem, for profit's sake, everybody's contribution, from automobiles to trash fires and coal- or oil-fired heating, even down to smoking, is given generous screen time, painting the picture of an entire society killing itself, quite literally. The film follows different protagonists through the Smog: The Rykalla family, the father who has to use his car to get to work, the mother worried about her infant daughter's breathing troubles and the grandfather who wants to flee the poisonous air. Then there is the director of the Globag company, a heavy industry behemoth, who argues about the economy and jobs and goes so far as to threaten the met-office head scientist in order to keep his factories running (and who won't miss the chauffeur running the car for half an hour so that its nice and warm to go to the office with). Last but not least, there are the civil servants, who have their hands full running the emergency services, trying to implement untested emergency plans against a a lack of staff, equipment and the population's cooperation and who see the whole affair as an opportunity to show their ability and further their image. The story of the protagonists is inter sped with faux news reports, experts with diverging opinions and scenes showing the effects of the disaster. There are many memorable scenes in the film: Rykalla cleaning off the black sludge sticking to his car-windows like ice in the winter, a footballer collapsing in the middle of the game from respiratory distress, a salesman flogging smog-masks to profit from the catastrophe. Looking at the film from a 23 year distance, it is hard to imagine such a situation occurring in our de-sulphurised, catalytically-converted, post-industrial, environmentally-alert society, or how people could be so oblivious to their own participation in it. Until one thinks about global warming and how most people simply refuse to see their own part in carbon-dioxide production. The film is also a chilling reminder of what the export of heavy industry to the third world is now doing to other people, elsewhere. This is one of my favorite Wolfgang Petersen films and I recommend it. Last but not least, I think calling this a Sci-Fi film is wrong - while catastrophic Smog in the Ruhrgebiet was still a theoretical problem at the time of the film's making, it was scientifically documented and its effects had been well observed twenty years earlier during the Great London Smog (which is cited by a journalist appearing in the film). It is a disaster-movie, an environmental thriller, and although not fast-paced it is intelligent and disturbing as a good thriller should be.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Atrocious
14 December 2004
From the beginning, it is obvious that the writer was a great fan of "Treasure Island". Just as obvious is that he has no talent. The story is plain painful. The execution, on the other hand, is probably worse. The cheapest animation (the original Toy Story looks better), coupled with directing compared to which Mr. Ed Wood would have deserved an Academy Award and editing that hardly deserves the name...this film doesn't even qualify as a waste of time, it's an atrocity against the viewer and the poor, defenseless computers it was rendered on. Literally watching paint dry is more enjoyable than this terrible edifice to the incompetence of untalented filmmakers.
1 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jersey Girl (2004)
6/10
Good, actually, but not Smith.
26 June 2004
I have been a great fan of Kevin Smith for a good many years now, and I have actually just reached the point where I can forgive him for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. So, when I decided to watch this movie, I did it out of my fandom, decidedly not because of Bennifer or because it was a Comedy Drama. Hell no. I usually avoid films with either of these characteristics like the black plague. However, it was actually good. I didn't particularly like it, but I must admit: It was well written, well cast, the actors all performed above par, the story was nice enough and the girl was cute. If you are into films with a bit of romance, comedy, the value of love and family, go watch it. If you are a fan of Kevin Smith's previous work however, you will probably be disappointed. This film may have been written and directed by Mr. Smith, but it just wasn't a Kevin Smith film. It had a few, fleeting moments of Smithness with the unavoidable Star Wars reference and a lot of actors from other Kevin Smith Films appearing, however, the tone of the film was absolutely different from anything Smith did before. It's nice and warm and cuddly rather than crazy, silly, outrageous and offensive. Apparently, after the JASBST debacle (okay, if you fast forward the parts with the forest marshal, it's just watchable), Mr. Smith grew up. Dogma was the pinnacle of his achievement and, sad to say, will probably remain so for ever and ever and ever. Speaking as a fan of craze, silly, outrage and offense, I will miss Mr. Smith. Good luck to you, Sir, on you voyage through an entirely different (and Jay and Silent Bob missing) genre. But the film is really good, though.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Race to Space (2001)
1/10
So bad. Just so bad.
16 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS HEREIN! This film is for children. Lonely children with no friends who need a moral pickup. But nobody else. I can live with inventing people for a "historical" story that never existed. I guess I can handle utterly obvious plot lines. I can definitely handle sweet VFX that was almost on par with Apollo13. What I cannot handle is, for example, these nice effects in stark contrast with old, grainy stock footage used in the same manner. I cannot handle the total butchery of history. This film creates the impression that the first rocket the Americans built that didn't blow up was the one carrying the chimpanzee. The first space mission, indeed. Explorer satellite? What's that? Of course, the entire existence of the Houston launch facility was, well, ignored in this film. As usual, the annoying lead brat saves the day more than once (come on, we've all seen films like this before), of course he gets to show all the other kids who tormented him how cool he is by posing with Alan Sheppard. Of course, even after living in the US for fifteen years the German engineers never eat anything else but Sauerkraut, Bratwurst and Schnitzel. And they all drive Volkswagens. There never was a Werner von Braun. And there only were three German engineers throughout Nasa. Not to mention that a private company was trying to sell the US Government a rocket design of their own that looked suspiciously like something that the actual von Braun designed for a 1950s Sci-Fi Film. The film is utterly predictable, ridiculous in it's premise, Woods wasted his talent here, basically portraying an animated broomstick during the entire first half of the film. All the plot devices have been done a hundred times before, and with much more style. Even though the shots of the launching rocket looked sweet enough (on the TV screen they didn't loose much compared to Apollo13), in other shots you could literally see the edge of the blue screen. It's okay enough for kids under twelve, but an abomination before celluloid and mental hemorrhage inducing for everybody else.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very nice
10 September 2003
Of course, the film is very opinionated in the first place, but as a documentary it shows how Mitnick was made victim of a public mud slinging campaign, how hackers (geeks!) were thrown into prison with violent maniacs, how prison authorities and the justice system abused them.

The film is a bit Michael Mooreish in style, quite entertaining if you know anything about the world of computers and does highlight some important facts, such as that many of the crimes Mitnick was accused of in the press were never proven, that the people who destroyed his reputation had never even met him and were in it simply for the money.
26 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Cool eye candy!
8 September 2003
The film is a metaphor for the cold war, it depicts two neighbouring nations: peace loving Aurora (long time, I think that is what it was called) and the not so peaceful land of the Steel City. While the first is a democracy, ruled by wise and compassionate men of science, the other is an over-industrialized hell, where workers are exploited by ruthless industrialists and suffer under the iron fist of the dictator. There is no organisational decision, no time-table and plan that is not decreed by the dictator. But strange things happen in the Steel City, and Aurora decides to send a spy. Infiltrating the military complex of Steel City, he makes a horrible discovery: the dictator is planning to wipe Aurora out with a super weapon. War looms....

The film is a must see for any science fiction buff, if only for the brilliant set designs. A mix of Jules Verne and industrial design ca. 1914, it's great eyecandy. The story is easy enough to follow and comes with a few interesting surprises. If you are not into sci-fi, or into espionage thrillers, or amazing optical values, don't watch it. If you are into these, by all means do!
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wasted
14 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Warning: Spoilers herein All right, to set some things straight: the story of the skater clones and the mixed up assassination, even thought especially the assassination sounded familiar, was really good. But the film that was constructed around it - horrible. Despicable. Repugnant. The entire winter thing - the Scandinavian vision of the end of the world, Ragnarök, eternal winter. Okay, it sure would be nice to make a film about that, but not only did it not fit in here, it was annoying and disorienting. The flying Ugandan's? Ripped of from Tim Earnshaw's rather nice novel, Helium. The man who could not stop flying? Okay, nice, really nice actually, but on the other hand - totally wasted.

Add to that annoying monotony and the simple fact that I am absolutely positive that I have either seen or read most of what I mentioned above elsewhere, this film is a crime against celluloid. Sure, the idea of putting global disaster into the background and focusing on some other stuff is really nice, but it did not work here - like anything else in the bloody film. I want these 90 minutes of my life back, dammit!

I gave this film a chance, really, I did, so I was even more disappointed. I thought maybe, just maybe, it's some kind of insider thing - something that would fall into my list of "underrated but great movies". No. It didn't even make "underrated but passable".
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Number three - barely
25 July 2003
The fourth cinematic installation of the Werner series of Comic Books, which I personally anticipated most eagerly, did just what part three did - it disappointed. Although based on one of the best comic books in the entire series, it simply lacks the anarchistic style of any of the books, and that is not even mentioning that it has the same cineastic flaws that part three provided with. The storyline is not as catching as in part two, the directing doesn't create the kind of suspension or amusement that some scenes are simply cut out for, and the jokes (some new, many gathered from other comic books) appear watered down. Read the books or enjoy the second film, this one only barely manages to rise above the third one. One of the properly most eagerly awaited parts of the film, the second period of the infamous football game (or soccer for our American fiends), which starts the film off, doesn't match the sheer hilarity of the first period and is mostly just a combination of fecal jokes. As usual, Meister Röhrich makes his apearence as the most incompetent plumber in sanitation history, but you notice it for what it is - without Werner and Eckart around, his appearances thrown in every now and then, he is just filler for a script too short for an entire film.

The animation, heavy on computer animated elements, doesn't meet the high standard set by the otherwise simply bad third film and gives the animation a most inconsistent look.

While the second film was sheer brilliance, the first film was too hilarious and anarchistic do deserve worse than part two, Gekotzt wird Spaeter only barely manages to beat Fäkalstau in Knöllerup. I hope, and I pray, that there will be another film, ideally with a story as great as in Volles Rohr, equally good directing and animation - but considering that only one week after it's start, multiplex cinemas moved Gekotzt wird spaeter into the smallest theaters in the house, with the evening shows starting at kid friendly times before 8pm, that is doubtful. The final chance for Werner's greatness on the screen, what could have been the finest moment for the series, has been wasted.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crazy Race (2003 TV Movie)
Don't even bother
24 June 2003
When German TV execs are out of ideas, they do pretty much the same American TV execs do: they look across the pond, copy a successful format, add a few stars to sell it. Same here, this is supposed to be some kind of German version of Cannonball. Which might be a fun idea, really. Add some half decent actors, some comedians, a lot of sweet and wicked cars. Then have a comatose monkey write a script, have it shot with a budget spent entirely on renting those sweet cars, and there you have it: total and utter *I'm not allowed to say this here*. This film is so bad, you couldn't even make it worse. The characters are even flatter than those in Cannonball, otherwise good actors seem to be forced to act badly, there's all kinds of sideline stories that are even stupider then the main storyline, the sets are bad, the dialogues don't even deserve that name, whoever wrote this ought to have his artistic license removed. I demand those two hours of my life back, RTL Television!
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Third time lucky? Regrettably not.
15 June 2003
The third cinematic installment of German cult cartoon figure Werner does, I have to say, not live up to the second film, yet really, it's not as bad as part one. The story goes: After doing a bit of alibi motorcycling in the introduction, Werner, Andi and their rocker friends discover that nasty building tycoon Günzelsen is planning to tear down their entire neighborhood. Of course, they do what they can to prevent it, and even involve Werner's boss, Röhrich, in their fight against Günzelsen. Suffice to say that this involves a bad impersonation of Hitler, Neo-Nazi feces and an apocalyptic sewer explosion. And that's really all there is to it, while the second film had stringent story around which it was constructed, this one simply lacks rigidity in telling the story.

As far as technology goes, the film is without flaw: combining conventional animation and state of the art computer technology, it looks really nifty, even better than hand-drawn part two.

But stars, toilet-humor and good computer effects alone don't make a good movie, as Hollywood found out long before.

The film really has it's moments, but they are too few and to far in between. Had the story been told in half the time, the film would have been great. The way it is, it is watchable, but that's it.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Be offended. Be very offended.
6 May 2003
The Film is based on the comic-figure of the same name by German cartoonist Walter Moers. Who has managed to make enemies out of German Neo-Nazis and the Jewish Central Comitte in Germany. At the same time. And as offenses go, Kleines Arschloch has probably been his broadest sweep in all directions so far.

If you can stomach a bit (a huge bit), then you will probably like this film, it is funny and intelligent, if also visvious and sinister at times.

However, the following groups will take offense to material in this film:

Christians, Muslims, Truckers, Bikers, Senior Citizens, children, adolescents, Policemen, Animal lovers, Anti Drug campaigners, Pro-Drug campaigners, people with any sense of shame and dignity, people opposing violence, Neo Nazis, Royalists, Men, Medical Practitioners, Hospital Staff, Women, Clergy, Radio announcers, Teachers, Parents and Musicians.

But really, the film is fun!
56 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed