Change Your Image
KaDaWe
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againThere are only series included where I have seen at least one season. As I want a certain consistency over the whole duration of a show to rate it high, I reduce the OVR Score by 4 if I have only watched one season, 3 if only two, and 2 if only three. Obviously this won't be the case if the series was cancelled earlier.
NEW ON THE LIST:
- Carnivále
- The 100
- Power
- Empire
- Justified
ON THE RISE:
- Hannibal
- Luther
- The Sopranos
- The Shield
- Mad Men
IN DECLINE
- Homeland
- The Walking Dead
- House of Cards
- Sherlock
- Hell on Wheels
SOON ON THE LIST (right now watching season one)
- TURN (4 out of 10 episodes)
- Generation Kill (3/7)
- Daredevil (3/13)
There are only series included where I have seen at least one season. As I want a certain consistency in each series to rate it high, I reduce the OVR Score by 7 if I have only watched one season, 5 if only two, and 3 if only three. Obviously this won't be the case if the series was cancelled earlier.
NEW ON THE LIST:
- Grace and Frankie
- Broad City
- Togetherness
- You're the Worst
- The Thick of It
ON THE RISE:
- Veep
- It's Always Funny In Philadelphia
- Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt
- Seinfeld
- Last Man Standing
IN DECLINE
- The Big Bang Theory
- Parks and Recreation
- Mom
- Alpha House
- Hello Ladies
SOON ON THE LIST (right now watching season one)
- Wet Hot American Summer: First Day of Camp (3/8)
- Brooklyn Nine-Nine (7/22)
- The Ranch (2/10)
Reviews
Marco Polo: The Fourth Step (2014)
An interim conclusion after four episodes
Two days of "Marco Polo" have gone by and even though I'm not a big binge-watching fan (I normally try to prolong my favorites series) I've already watched four of the ten episodes (for many people not even this is binge-watching, but for my standards that's insane).
Despite the first two episodes only being "nice" and "solid", this series has made me addicted. It's just so different from the other stuff we normally see, as - let's be honest, here in the Western world (in my case Germany) most of us don't know a lot about Asia and its history. And from the four episodes I've seen and the things I've known before watching it, nothing is the same there as in Europe and North America.
In the meantime, the characters are slowly starting to evolve and develop, and I already like Marco Polo and the others very much. Kublai Khan is maybe my favorite character, he's the typical "Game of Thrones"-guy in my opinion, someone where you don't really know if he's good or evil. But the Song family and it's chancellor are very entertaining, too.
The best you'll get from this series obviously is the look of it - I mean it has to, as it cost 80 million dollars. The world looks so authentic, the cinematography is astonishing and man, just watching it blows you away.
Last but not least, I just want to mention the fighting and action scenes in this interim conclusion. There are not many if you ask me, I expected a lot more, but they are so, so good. I love the scenes with 100 Eyes, they use a lot of slow motion there and especially here the cinematography shines.
Altogether, as you may noted, I really like this show so far. Obviously it's not perfect, as I wrote in my pilot review, the first one or two episodes felt too rushed, and the main story is still a bit bog-standard. Otherwise though, this one is great and another hit from Netflix. This series will (hopefully) be awesome in the second half, when the Khan vs. Song clash will arrive.
GRADES: (Scores:) Episode 1: B+ (82/100), Episode 2: A- (89/100), Episode 3: A+ (95/100), Episode 4: A (91/100), OVERALL: A- (89/100)
Marco Polo: The Wayfarer (2014)
Feels a bit rushed, but otherwise a very nice start!
To be honest, I was really scared that the series is a huge disappointment after I read numerous reviews this morning of people saying that it's ludicrous and dull. Thankfully, it seems like these "experts" watch something completely different than I do.
"Marco Polo" looks great in its pilot, mostly by the great editing, cinematography and music. But the relatively unknown (I didn't know anyone) actors show their talent off as well. The plot is like I expected it to be (and as you've been able to see in teasers): Marco Polo and his dad are travelling to Mongolia and are meeting Kublai Khan there. He's keeping Marco, so that the dad can travel on the silk road. In the meantime, they want to conquer the south of China where the Song dynasty still prevails.
From what I know, the pilot is mostly true to the stories of Polo and of the Asian world. This semester, I attend a lecture at university about China and we did the history there, too. I haven't noticed a really big mistake yet - though we only did it superficially in the course, so I'm not a total expert either.
The only bad thing was the pace, everything, especially in the first 20-something minutes, felt rushed. I would have loved to see Marco's journey to Asia a bit more detailed (maybe over 2-3 episodes, it'd have been really interesting for sure) and not over a length of just roughly 15 minutes. However, I understand that the producers wanted to concentrate on the relationship between Polo and Khan.
So, overall a very nice start by the new epic series of Netflix, which is maybe the best series maker behind HBO already. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the first season. It'll most likely be a great time.
GRADE: B+ (Score: 82/100)
Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)
The Music Keeps The Movie Alive
When you look back to the original "Blues Brothers" from 1980, it's really amazing how many people of the cast died since then. There are of course the big one's like John Belushi, Ray Charles, James Brown, Cab Calloway, Kathleen Freeman or John Candy, but also the more unknown one's like Donald Dunn, Alan Rubin or Henry Gibson. I thought that, because of this, a sequel isn't a good idea. That's also the reason why I didn't watch it until now, so 15 years after "Blues Brothers 2000" was released.
After watching the movie I was relieved: The film was a lot better than I expected. Especially the music is once again amazing and it's nice to see John Goodman singing that awesome. To be honest with you: Maybe the score was even better than the "Blues Brothers" one. Otherwise, the story was so-so. It feels like you've already seen it. And this isn't even a feeling, it's the truth, as the plot is nearly the same as the original one. Again, the film starts with the release out of prison, again the band will be renewed and then will drive through the country to the one and final big gig. It seems like John Belushi is replaced by John Goodman, Cab Calloway by John Morton, and the Nazis by the Russians. The only missing part is the huge chase with the police, which was easily the best moment of "Blues Brothers". But don't get me wrong, the story is still great. But it's just a copy from the original one without the great characters of John Belushi or Cab Calloway.
Overall the film is average, but the music is so good that it's not as important as usual. While the 1980 version is still a classic and one of the best movies ever made, this one is in the middle of the pack with six out of ten points.
Ted (2012)
What's Wrong With The People?
Everyone watched it and everyone liked it and deemed it to one of the best comedies ever. I'm personally pretty shocked by that, because I've rarely seen such a stupid movie. Now I really have to wonder if it's me or society that something's wrong with.
But let's begin with the good things about the film: At first the concept is pretty good (a teddy bear who was sweet once, but now is an alcoholic who trips out sometimes). Secondly, the cast is very promising, too. Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis and Seth MacFarlane are all household names in Hollywood. And third, some jokes are funny - every now and then even exceptionally hilarious.
And with that I immediately build a bridge to the bad side of the film: Some jokes are perhaps good, but most of them are just dumb. I really don't get what's so funny about watching people who are saying the f-word in every other sentence. A scene in a supermarket with a blonde woman, a sausage and Ted himself (I don't want to give you too many details) is just disgusting and especially at that point I wondered how this film was rated for eleven or twelve year old children in some countries. OK, to make it clear to you I have to tell you the ending of this little scene (it's at the beginning of the film and no important part, so not really a spoiler): Ted f***s the woman (my goodness, now I even use this word ...) - I mean, come on, how for goodness' sake is this amusing?
Now that I have complained about the weak jokes enough, I want to mention the other two big blunders of the movie: The completely bog-standard plot could have been told in about ten minutes, and you know from nearly the first minute on how the story more or less will develop. Two of the three main characters aren't really likable either and I felt really sorry for Mila Kunis' one (though I don't understand why she lives with two drug addicts, one being a teddy bear, by choice).
This is all I can tell you about this movie at the moment. For me it's one the biggest movie disappointments ever. So, overall four out of ten points, because at least the idea was good and I laughed sometimes.
Oblivion (2013)
As Unrealistic As It Can Get
I hadn't had big expectations before I watched the movie, but sadly these still weren't reached. "Oblivion" is a movie which could have been great, but failed due to unrealism and mistakes.
The story itself is well done, but maybe it would have been better if it had been shorter. The technical aspects are amazing, the landscapes and the whole world look great. Tom Cruise plays pretty good either, the same goes for Morgan Freeman (but I think that's self-evident).
That's nearly everything good I can say about this movie. The worst part is that the movie is, like I've already written above, unrealistic. Most of the things that keep you wondering are mentioned in numerous other reviews, so you can read them there. Other than that you can say from the beginning on what most likely will happen. And besides Cruise's and Freeman's characters most people in the movie are replaceable.
This are just some of the things that I think made the movie a below-average one. So, altogether I can't give it more than four points. That's pretty sad, because it could have been really great.
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012)
Just Too Much Craziness
"Madagascar" is one of my favorite animation movies and it's sequel was nearly on the same level. You can count both to the best animation adventures you can watch. Sadly, with "Madagascar 3" it isn't the same. For me it's a very big disappointment.
The reason why I didn't really like "Madagascar 3" is that it's just too crazy, it's just too colorful, too much unrealistic moments, too much of everything. The female enemy is nothing but awful as well. The circus scenes are wonderfully edited, but again, just too much. I can go on with this, but I don't really have time for it.
So, you can surely watch it once if you've already seen the first two films, but don't expect a masterpiece. The technical aspects are fulfilled flawlessly again, but the story is just dumb - can't say it in another way. Four out of ten points in my opinion.
The Road (2009)
Solid, But Nothing You Have To Watch More Than Once
Cormac McCarthy is in my opinion one of the best writers of the last century. "Blood Meridian" and "No Country For Old Men" are both amazing and he has a very special writing style. Because of that I had high expectations for "The Road". Though I didn't read it, I was sure that the film would be great. My expectations sadly weren't fulfilled.
Don't get me wrong, it's still a nice movie, very depressing, shocking, but nonetheless good. It just doesn't reach the standard I'm used to from McCarthy's books and adapted films. The reason I'm not completely sold on is that I really didn't like any of the characters besides an old man who's in the picture for about five minutes.
The father is very rude. He may not kill, but he lets people die without mercy. I understand that it's really hard to live in this world, but he said once at the beginning that there are not many good people left ... So why does he let the few of them die?
The boy is not really better. Always friendly and calm, he is the exact opposite of his dad. When the dad is attacked and defends himself by shooting the assailant, the child resists the action of his father. For me that doesn't make any sense.
And at last: the mother. I think it's pretty clear that she's unsympathetic. She's so emotionless. It's really sad ...
I could go on with all the other characters, because no one's really sensitive, but it would take too long. Overall, it's a good story, just nothing really special -> six out of ten points.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
I Don't Get The Critics ...
I was really surprised when I first read the critics about this movie. In my opinion this film is just great - nothing else. The story is really interesting and different this time, because two other magical schools, Beauxbatons from France and Durmstrang from East Europe, are visiting Hogwarts. The three institutes organize the Triwizard Tournament. There's one champion from each school who fights for the win. Of course, somehow, Harry is a champion, too, even though Cedric Diggory from Hufflepuff is chosen before. The result is that there are four champions. All have to withstand three tasks. That's the beginning of the plot.
The tasks are shown just beautifully, maybe there's more action than in the books, but it's still great. The effects are particularly in this film amazing. New characters like Mad-Eye Moody, Victor Krum or Fleur Delacour are mostly like I imagined them.
Though the new style of the film is great, it's maybe the weakest of the first four movies. And, I'm a little disappointed because of it, for the first time important scenes from the books are missing or are changed. Just a few examples (these are not spoilers, as they are only included in the books!):
The Quidditch World Cup at the very beginning is way too short. In the book everything's described very detailed, also the finale, which isn't even shown in the film.
Ludo Bagman, who for me was one of my favorite characters in all books, is missing entirely.
From the fourth book on Hermione has some sort of desire to help the house elves, which is a very funny part. This is also missing completely.
I can't remember that Dumbledore has been angry or furious ever in the books. Sadly he has this somehow cold personality from the fourth movie going on to the sixth.
It's very sad that scenes like these aren't included, but on the other hand I also understand it, because if you take everything from the book you'd have a four to five hour movie.
Because of that, I give the film nine out of ten points. Sadly, it's the last adequate Potter until "The Deathly Hallows: Part 2".
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Completely Different Style Than The First Two, But Still Great
Sadly Chris Columbus stopped with the directing of the "Harry Potter" movies after "The Chamber of Secrets". In my opinion, he was by far the best director of the saga. He was replaced by Alfonso Cuarón, who, I think so, wasn't a well known director at that point. What you can say from the first seconds on is that his style of adaptating "The Prisoner of Azkaban" is completely different than Columbus did it.
Even though it seems like another "Harry Potter" series, it's still great. The story is very dark, and Cuarón captures it wonderfully. The look of Hogwarts Castle is also a lot different - sadly I don't like it very much. Even the kids look a lot different. In this case it's a great idea to change it, because they look like they have a lot more freedom. They don't wear the Hogwarts cloaks in their free time anymore, but normal clothing.
The story itself is fantastic and one of the best of "Harry Potter". Overall it's an amazing movie, it's sad that Cuarón only produced one. So, nine out of ten points!
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Great Adaptation By Columbus, Sadly Weakest Potter Story
Watching all "Harry Potter" movies I have to say that there was one weak director (Yates), two good one's, but one who really stood out - and it's Chris Columbus. Nobody of the other three guys got it done so beautifully to make a film out of this amazing story of the wizard world around Harry Potter.
The great thing in Columbus's Potter's is that nearly everything is like it's described in the books, and it should be the case. He didn't change many things, the important scenes are all included and there are no new story lines like in the last movies.
So, why "just" nine points? The reason is that in my opinion "The Chamber of Secrets" has the weakest narrative of all seven books (or movies). Don't get me wrong, it's still unbelievably good and exciting, but for me, it's just the least great.
Conclusion: Awesome movie, nine out of ten points, and sadly the last Potter with Chris Columbus as director and Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore (RIP Richard Harris, the greatest Dumbledore the world could imagine).
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Call Me Crazy, But In My Opinion The Best Potter
Wow, what a movie! I watched this film several times in the last years and can't get enough of it. For me personally this is best book and the best movie of Joanne K. Rowling's "Harry Potter".
The reason why I like it so much is that Harry just doesn't know anything about the magical word, he doesn't even know that it exists. Then he finds it out and with that explores the whole new world, like Diagon Alley, Hogwarts Castle of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and also these little things like Quidditch and words like "Muggle". To be part of this journey that Harry experiences is just a wonderful feeling. Of course this is also the case in the later stories, for example the Ministry of Magic and that there are also other wizard schools, but not that often and in this particular way.
So, that's the reason why I also love the book, but the big thing why I think that "The Philosopher's Stone" and "The Chamber of Secrets" are perhaps the best Potter's is because Chris Columbus, the director, made an amazing job of creating this world in reality. He put all important moments of the books in and didn't come up with other scenes which didn't even happen - like the last director David Yates sadly did. Columbus was really able to convert the magical world around Harry from a novel to the screen.
Overall this is one of my favorite movies of all time, maybe even the best. The story is fantastic, the acting is great and everything is perfectly taken over from book to film. Just amazing, 10 stars out of 10 from my perspective!
Lo imposible (2012)
The Most Shocking Movie I Have Ever Seen
When I first saw the trailer of "The Impossible" I had my doubts to be honest. How do you want to make a movie of this event which isn't offensive to some people? Nonetheless, I decided to watch it, as I'm a big fan of Ewan McGregor, who plays the dad.
The result after about 110 minutes was nothing but shock and sadness. I saw the TV reports in 2004, but somehow never thought that it was that extreme (ok, I was pretty young back then). When you watch Naomi Watts crawling around in dirt and full of pain, it's like you feel the pain as well. When you watch Tom Holland missing his mother and despair, you fell the desperation as well. And this is the case all the time. But that's also the thing which makes this movie so great. During the whole movie you share the drill with the characters, that they find each other again. After the movie you are, like I wrote already, just shocked and you wonder how this could happen and how many families were separated because of it.
At last, I want to say that the performance of the actors and actresses is just fantastic. It looks like Tom Holland, the oldest of the three children, is the "unofficial" main character, but in this case it's not bad that a kid has the main role, as he plays it so awesome. The others are of course great, too.
So, my conclusion: A shocking yet amazing movie. The only reason why I don't give it ten stars is because there are some very nasty scenes in it (blood, injuries, etc.), and I'm not a fan of something like that. But yeah, if you don't need action or comedy in every film, you'll like it for sure.