SithApprentice Reviews

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

An interesting new take on the Star Wars saga

[7/10 · 15 August 2008]

With "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith", the Star Wars saga had reached an impressive and more than fitting conclusion that cemented its place in movie history, though the thought of never seeing anything related to Lucas' universe on the big screen again was more than saddening, despite the announcement of two new TV shows hitting the small screen this year and in 2010. Beyond all probability, though, Lucasfilm surprised us all with the cinematic release of the first episodes of the new Clone Wars CG cartoon series, bundled together as a coherent movie.

The story takes place during the 3 year gap between Episode II and III as the Clone Wars are raging throughout the galaxy. In order to gain a tactical advantage over the Separatist armies, the Republic has decided to help Jabba the Hutt, the infamous crime lord, rescue his kidnapped son Rotta the Hutt from a B'omarr monastery on the remote planet Teth. In exchange for their help, Jabba is willing to grant the Republic free and secure travel through the Outer Rim territories via his trading routes. Anakin Skywalker and his new apprentice Ahsoka Tano are given the task of rescuing Jabba's son, while Obi-Wan Kenobi is negotiating a treaty with Jabba the Hutt. Naturally, Anakin and Ahsoka find out that the Separatists are behind Rotta's abduction in an attempt to turn the Hutt Clan against the Republic as well...

While the story definitely is an interesting take on the Star Wars universe, full of small and surprising references to the feature films, it's not the most important aspect of this film. Instead, it's all about delivering entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. The story is merely a means of stringing the action scenes together.

There are, however, some character driven moments, particularly between Anakin and Ahsoka, and the chemistry between the two works surprisingly well, especially when you take into consideration that Ahsoka herself is a lot like Anakin in terms of being hotheaded and how Anakin is trying to mature by taking a padawan under his wing. Even the banter between the two isn't as grating as some people make it out to be; it's actually pretty funny if you'e willing to see the movie with the right mindset. Ahsoka remains the sole major character to be added to the Star Wars roster. Rotta the Hutt might be the MacGuffin of this movie, but there isn't exactly a lot he does apart from being carried and taken care of the by the Jedi - fortunately, though, he is not as awful as one might have feared. Not even Ziro the Hutt, Jabba's uncle and conspirator behind the scenes, is as dreadful as some early reviews made it seem, although I would have preferred to see a "normal" Hutt for this role.

As I already mentioned, the main focus of "The Clone Wars" lies on the action, and in this department, it definitely delivers. The large scale battles between the Republic and the Separatists are at times on the same level as the real episodes, while the scenes involving the Jedi are a lot of fun to watch as well, even though the lightsaber duels could have been better.

The reason why the action sequences work so well actually is the enthusiastically discussed artistic style of the movie. I have to admit that it takes a while to get used to the character models, but they are well animated and do have quite some charm. The droids, clones, spaceships et cetera, however, look almost as good as they did in Episodes I - III, and when it comes to the overall visual quality of the film, it's definitely on par with most of today's CG cartoons, even if Pixar naturally is out of reach and on top of things. Nevertheless, it's easy to enjoy the thrilling battles and some beautiful landscapes; and the movie can be quite a treat for your eyes.

John Williams, a Star Wars mainstay, is absent from this picture, but I wasn't bothered by it at all. In fact, I enjoyed it that the music was at times different from what we've heard in the movies, even though well known themes such as the Force Theme still appear. The music definitely fits the atmosphere and is an interesting departure from the established Star Wars tunes.

In the end, this movie isn't nearly as good as any of the real Star Wars episodes (not even the unfairly criticized Episode I), but you can't judge this movie as a legitimate part of the SW puzzle. It's a fitting interlude to fill the gap between Episode II and III and to show Star Wars in a completely new way. If you are planning on seeing this movie, then don't expect it to be a "real" Star Wars film, otherwise, you might end up being disappointed. If you are willing to enjoy an entertaining, easy-going journey into the Star Wars saga, then chances you might have some fun. Just give it a chance.

Hobgoblins (1988)

Shockingly awful

[1/10 · 26 May 2008]

Thanks to everyone's favorite movie riffing show of the 90s, good old Mystery Science Theater 3000, movie lovers worldwide have been able to experience some of the worst dreck cinema has to offer. With artistic abominations such as "Manos": The Hands of Fate, "Space Mutiny", "The Wild World of Batwoman" or "Robot Holocaust", our understanding of bad movies has changed completely - next to these pitiful excuses for motion pictures, Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" looks like sci-fi extravaganza, and "Glen or Glenda" like a serious contender for an academy award nomination.

But just when I thought that movies can't get any worse than, say, "Manos", MST3K unearths another cinematic catastrophe that lowers the bar even further - if that even sounds like a possible feat. In this particular case, "Hobgoblins" was the movie that surprised in a most displeasing manner...

But let me start with the, ahem, "story". Our protagonist is a teenager named Kevin, and life hasn't been too kind to him. Apart from being plagued by the most insensitive girlfriend imaginable, he has to make a living as a security guard on an abandoned movie lot, together with old McCreedy, who has been working on the lot for decades. One night, while walking through the halls of the studio, Kevin stumbles over a vault, and being the moron he is, he immediately opens the vault and thus releases...THE HOBGOBLINS! As McCreedy reveals, these small, green critters once arrived on the lot from outer space, but due to their unfortunate ability to kill people by making their fantasies come true, McCreedy imprisoned them within the vault (because, you know, killing and getting rid of the problem them would have made too much sense...). Now, it is up to Kevin to kill the creatures before they can do serious harm to his (utterly idiotic) friends or anyone else...

From the moment you first see the Hobgoblins, you know that this flick is nothing more than a cheap rip-off of 80s hits like "Gremlins" or "Critters", and to be fair, this could have worked and provided us with mindless low-budget fun. But unfortunately, what we got instead turns out to be a disaster of epic proportions. First of all, what's with the design and look of the creatures? The makers of this film obviously didn't even attempt to make them look passable, since all we see painfully obvious hand-puppets that move in a terribly awkward manner and look absolutely pathetic. But trust me, they're not the biggest problem this movie has. Even worse is their peculiar ability. Honestly, it sounds like a decent concept on paper, but the fantasies the creatures make real are...well, unspeakable. Kyle, for example, a pitiful loser and friend of Kevin, is phone-sex addict, and thus the creatures lure him into a date with the supposed girl behind the voice. And to kill him, the illusion-girl (fittingly called Fantazia...) tries to push the car she and Kyle are in over a cliff...o-kay. As if that wasn't dumb enough already, we also witness Amy (Kevin's icy "girlfriend") fantasizing about becoming a stripper in "Club Scum" (no kidding) or sex-addict Daphne fantasizing about making sweet love to her army-friend Nick within his car...well, you can tell that the script-writers were not only inept, but quite naughty as well. Sure, it's just a sci-fi flick, so maybe I sound overly critical, but the story of this mess is just painful. It's full of logical errors and moronic characters acting dumb to advance the plot, and just wait till the end of the film...ugh.

As I mentioned earlier, the creature design already reveals how ineptly made this film is, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Apparently, none of the folks involved had any knowledge about professional film-making. Pace, camera-work and storytelling are just chaotic, and the best example can be found during a scene in Club Scum: the characters are calmly sitting at a table and listening to a band performing. And this goes on for about 2 minutes. No kidding, we have the same camera angle for 2 straight minutes focusing on the stage, as if it was supposed to be a shameless advertisement for the band. No need to mention other action scenes such as the infamous garden-rake fight that is dumb in itself already and goes on for what seems like an eternity.

And the actors? Don't get me started on them...throughout the entire movie, all you see are pure amateurs, stumbling awkwardly through this mess and delivering their lines in the worst way possible - just the icing on the cake in this film.

Having seen the likes of "Robot Holocaust" and now this, I highly doubt that there are worse movies the 80s have to offer. This movie more than deserves its place in the IMDb bottom 100, and I'd go as far as saying that it should remain there for years to come...I refuse to believe that movies could possibly get worse than this.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

A solid return of everyone's favorite archaeologist

[8/10 · 25 May 2008]

Beyond all probability, a miracle happened on May 21 this year: after 19 years of empty rumors, the archaeologist with the fedora and the whip finally returned to big screen, and I was there on day one to welcome him back. But was the return of Indiana Jones worth the agonizing wait?

Similar to the first three Indiana Jones flicks, we're thrown right into one of Indy's adventures. It's 1957, 19 years after the end of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", and we find out that a visibly older Henry Jones, Jr. and his pal "Mac" (Ray Winstone) have been abducted by a Soviet special unit and taken to a military base somewhere in the desert of Nevada - namely the legendary Area 51. There, the Soviets under their leader Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) force Indy into finding a certain box inside a warehouse (complete with a nod to the end of the first film). After an extraordinary escape (involving a betrayal, a ride on a rocket-powered vehicle, a nuclear blast and a "flight" inside a fridge), Jones' colleague Dean Charles Stanforth (Jim Broadbent) reveals that due to pressure from the FBI (seeing as how his relation to the now-Communist Mac has made him a suspect), he has to take a leave of absence from his profession at Marshall College in order to avoid being fired. Just before he can leave the town by train, he is stopped by Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf), a young, motorcycle-riding greaser who reveals that an old friend of Indy, Harold Oxley, has disappeared shortly after the discovery of a mysterious Crystal Skull in Peru, and from then on, the plot begins to thicken as Indy, Mutt and Indy's old lover Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) hunt for the crystal skull and try to protect it from the Soviets...

The MacGuffin of this story, the Crystal Skull, really is a breath of fresh air compared to the biblical artifacts of part 1 and 3 or the fictional Sankara Stones, and George Lucas was right when he said that the stories surrounding the crystal skulls are fitting for an Indiana Jones movie.

Overall, the story manages to capture the feel of the old Indiana Jones films, even though there are two plot twists that might anger old-school Indy fanboys - I myself don't know what to think of them, even though I have to admit that, in a way, the revelation of the big twist near the end as well as the ending sequence left me a bit disappointed regarding the dialogue and filming - Spielberg and Koepp could have done a much better job here.

When it comes to the actors, I am relieved to say that Harrison Ford is back on track with his portrayal of Dr. Henry Jones, Jr. - both physically and dramatically, and he still dominates the screen. To say that fans have been skeptical about Shia LaBeouf's role as Mutt Williams is quite an understatement, but in my opinion, he really is a talented actor and delivers an excellent performance as the arrogant-at-first greaser - much better than his role in "Transformers". Next to these two, nearly all the other characters appear to be a bit undercooked. Cate Blanchett obviously has a lot of fun with her role as the cold, intelligent and dangerous Soviet commander, and while she does a good job overall, her character is too one-dimensional, and her motivations are too thin. The same goes for Ray Winstone's Mac: it's an okay-performance, but the only quality of the character that really stands out is his greed (and triggering comic relief), and he is no replacement for Denholm Elliott as Marcus Brody or John Rhys-Davies as Sallah. John Hurt's character, however, is a complete waste. He doesn't have a lot of screen-time to begin with, and when you see him, he is not given many opportunities to show his talent, being relegated to an insane wreck uttering mumbo-jumbo. Everyone else isn't even worth mentioning, seeing that even Jim Broadbent's appearance is merely a short cameo. In the end, this movie lacks charming supporting actors to lighten up the mood.

What really disappointed me, though, were some of the action scenes, the CGI and the soundtrack, normally marks of quality of an Indy flick. Most of the action scenes, lacked the excitement and creativity of the first 3 and felt too slow and drawn-out at times - sorry, but nothing as exciting as the boulder rock chase in part 1 here. Part of the blame goes to the strangely mediocre CGI. To tell you the truth, the effects are nowhere near as good as those found in the Star Wars prequels or the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is a surprise for an ILM flick. Some scenes simply look too bright and colorful, while the CG monkeys were useless and badly animated. Oh, my dear John Williams. Usually, I adore your work, and with the soundtrack for "Revenge of the Sith", you have created the best music for any film I've ever heard. But this time around, all we hear are old, well-known themes from the earlier movies as well as some uninspired new tracks that remain in the background far too often - unlike Williams' other scores, this one is unable to tell the story along with the visuals, and it doesn't do anything to enhance what we see and to pull us into the story. That was quite unexpected, honestly.

In the end, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" has its share of flaws, and it definitely isn't as magnificent as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Last Crusade", but it ranks up there right next to "Temple of Doom" as a solid entry in the franchise that is better than anything we could have hoped for after so many years and such a tremendous hype.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

The "Batman Forever" of the Spider-Man series...or, in other words: the most disastrous disappointment in quite a while

[6/10 · 13 May 2007]

Don't believe the hype - seldom has this saying been so true when looking at Spider-Man 3. Even I as a non-comic-book-fan enjoyed Spider-Man 1 & 2 and was looking forward to this one, but looks like Sam Raimi fooled us all...

For no apparent reason, director Sam Raimi overstuffed this installment of Spider-Man to an extent that one could think he cut two different films together, even though things start well enough with Peter Parker's life appearing to be just perfect as the beloved hero of NYC and with his love to MJ prospering.

However, once a comet carrying the much talked about symbiote conveniently lands on earth directly next to MJ and Peter in the park without the two even noticing, this movie turns into an unforgivable mess packed with half-hearted sub-stories and useless new characters. For example, shortly after the symbiote managed to make its way to Peter's apartment, we suddenly find out that the police finally found the supposed true murderer of Pete's uncle Ben in a tragic criminal named Flint Marko, who is committing crimes for the sake of his sick daughter. This Flint Marko, however, while being chased by police officers, "conveniently" stumbles over a testing ground for a particle accelerator, which transforms him into the Sandman, a terrifying and seemingly invincible new villain for Spidey to fight. And then there is Harry Osborn, Peter's former best friend who found out about Peter's alter ego and now blames him for the death of his father (as seen in part 1), seeking revenge by going the way of his father and hunting Spidey as the New Goblin. Oh, and then there is a new rival for Peter at the Daily Bugle named Eddie Brock, using dirty tricks in order to outclass Peter, with his girlfriend Gwen Stacey flirting with both Peter Parker and Spider-Man and making Mary Jane and Eddie jealous in the process...and last but not least, the symbiote itself seems to be a far greater threat to Pete than he could have possibly imagined, personified by...I think you can guess who is going to be affected by the symbiote apart from Spidey and will represent his completely dark side...

See what I mean? All these plot lines have been cramped into roughly two hours of screen time, and I did not even mention the useless bits showing Peter Parker as a mean a-hole due to the symbiote's influence that seem more ridiculous than anything else. But especially the last act of the movie, or roughly the last 30 minutes, seem so tacked-on and incoherent that one might assume that this part of the film was not even planned to be there to begin with, and it only drags the entire story down. Due to this overflow of plot lines, it is clear that the movie cannot do justice to each of them, hence the story as a whole seems half hearted and literally crumbles under the weight of so many characters and sub-stories as well as nonsensical and gaping plot-holes (like the sudden appearance of the symbiote or the creation of Sandman), with the last twenty minutes being reason enough for comic book fans to curse Sam Raimi, since not even the actors manage to save the story. Tobey Maguire remains shockingly stale and wooden as Peter Parker, and specifically his performance during the love scenes come off as unintentionally funny. I still can't understand what happened to Tobey, since he really did a great job in the first two, and I thought he would have grown even more into the role. Kirsten Dunst as MJ seems to be complete out of place in this movie, and even James Franco as Harry Osborn has a few embarrassing moments. Thomas Haden Church on the other hand plays the part of the tragic villain Flint Marko rather nicely, while Topher Grace as Eddie Brock rivals the wooden performance by Maguire. I guess part of the problem are the horrible dialogue lines (even for a comic book movie), and even the way George Lucas is writing his love scenes (I am a Lucas supporter, though) is infinitely superior to the tedious and painful exchanges between Dunst and Maguire. At least J.K. Simmons as Jonah Jameson as well as Bruce Campbell in a hilarious cameo as a French waiter manage to save the cast from being a complete disappointment.

The only saving grace of the movie, though, are its breathtaking action sequences - apart from the final confrontation, that is, which lacks any excitement whatsoever and comes off as a pale rehash of the first two. Not even the visual effects are perfect, in fact, they are even less believable than in the previous two, with some scenes making it painfully obvious that a lot has been done via CGI in some inappropriate places...John Dykstra's absence from Spider-Man 3 is rather apparent in that regard, unfortunately, even though the effects in general are still quite nice to look at (especially Sandman is a well done CG character, while not on par with General Grievous or Gollum), just not on the same level as Lord of the Rings or the Star Wars prequels.

In the end, Spider-Man 3 is a towering disappointment, a movie that does not live up to the enormous hype in the least bit and lacks all the strengths of its predecessors, and I am still at a loss of words - how could this have possibly gone so terribly wrong? What on earth was Sam Raimi, normally a great director, thinking? What happened to the usually solid cast? And why does the plot have to be too ambitious for its own good? It really is sad to see the Spider-Man going the way of the Batman franchise in the 90s - in fact, this IS the Batman Forever of the Spider-Man series. I for my part doubt that a fourth part could bring the series back on track.

Space Mutiny (1988)

Can Science Fiction possibly get worse than this?

[1/10 · 1 May 2007]

I think it is common knowledge by now that the 80s were being plagued by a flood of all kinds of sci-fi movies in order to exploit the tremendous success of the 70s "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". We also don't have to discuss the fact that a majority of these movies was complete and utter rubbish, to be perfectly frank. But with "Space Mutiny", we don't just have a movie that is just a cheap rip-off of Star Wars. Oh, don't get me wrong, it certainly is at heart, but this movie actually accomplishes the herculean task of representing the absolute, sad bottom of the barrel of the 80s sci-fi shlock. No, "Space Mutiny" is not just "Solarbabies"-bad. We're talking about a movie that is "Robot Holocaust"-bad, and if that does not scare you away already, then you are tougher than the casual movie-goer.

With a movie this dreadful, it is difficult to decide where to begin with mentioning the various glaring faults this cinematic abomination tortured us with, but I think the no. 1 reason for this movie to suck so bad is the non-existent budget. At least I was unable to realize that this movie even had a budget higher than 1000$ during most of the scenes, and that's the death twitch for this flick. The story is supposed to take place in the far future, on a self-sustaining, gigantic space ship called "Southern Sun", carrying hundreds of people on a mission to colonize new worlds. Unfortunately, the sets and art design are unable to establish this premise at all. In fact, the inside shots of the space ship sometimes even give away the fact that some scenes were being filmed inside a warehouse, with the sun shining through the windows being visible in the background, and no effort to hide this embarrassing goof at all. Or take the futuristic vehicles, for example. Well, there actually is only one kind of vehicle on board of the Southern Sun: a golf cart. Yes, that's right. A golf cart. As if that wasn't bad enough already, it's getting worse when we are forced to watch an exciting chase sequence involving two golf carts...yuck, yuck, yuck. 90% of all the other action sequences revolve around shoot-outs between our "bold" heroes and the fiendish villains, with fake and cheesy laser beams having been edited into the picture afterwards, and needless to say, it looks laughably bad. And I am still at a loss of words in view of the fact that the footage of the Southern Sun and the unnecessary space battles has been taken directly from Battlestar Galactica (what does that tell you about the quality of the flick if the creators had to steal from Battlestar Galactica? Sad...), with no mentioning of the original source and with no permission by the creators of BG. That kinda tells us how much money was being spent on the special effects, alright, and as a result, we sometimes don't see certain events like a small shuttle landing in the hangar bay of the Southern Sun. Instead, we just see ridiculously cheap vector graphics on a computer monitor straight from the beginning of the 80s, with a voice over telling us what these animated lines and objects are supposed to represent. A similar sequence in the first Star Wars (the briefing shortly before the attack on the Death Star) was lightyears ahead of this crap, and even an Atari 2600 would have been ashamed of these computer graphics. Yep, this movie takes us into the far future, and that alone makes me buy this fact completely...just like the 80s disco onboard...

Okay, the "action" and "special effects" (I hate to mention these terms in the same line as this flick...) are among the worst the 80s have to offer, and unfortunately, there is no story to save this movie from falling apart. I won't even bother to go deeper into the countless plot holes this flick has to offer for critics (involving one unbelievably embarrassing continuity error within just 3 minutes...), but at least the actors deserve an "honorable" mention. If "Robot Holocaust" was the epitome of lifeless acting, then "Space Mutiny" is the perfect example for horrible overacting. Each and every single character over-emphasizes his or her lines to an extent that it becomes unbearable to listen to them, even though this certainly was an attempt to make the inane dialogue seem less stupid than it is. Especially the villain named Kalgon (responsible for the mutiny mentioned in the title) and the hero David Ryder are the lowlights in this regard, with Kalgon's overacted and clichéd villain lines and idiotic eeeeevvvvvviiiiilllll laughter being the icing on the cake. And don't get me even started on the chemistry between the characters, since I sure as hell did not notice any chemistry whatsoever, no-thanks to some horrible casting decisions (whoever chose Cisse Cameron as the female lead character and youthful *cough* lead should not be allowed to be in film business anymore).

The only way to watch this joke of a sci-fi film without suffering severe pain is to choose the MST3K version. Mike and the bots even make this dung to a hilarious experience, and their witty (and true) comments are a far better way to sum up the idiocy of this movie than any review possibly could. But since this is a review of the movie and not the MST3K version, there's no way this movie deserves anything above 1/10. Right on par with the worst the 80s have to offer.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Best of the Prequels and second only to Episode V

[10/10 · 30 December 2005]

I've been a Star Wars fan for what seems like an eternity. I absolutely adore Episode IV, V and VI, and I also enjoyed Episode I and II, despite their flaws. So one can guess I was excited when I went to cinema on May 18 this year. First, I was a little undecided on what to think of it, but after the second viewing, I can just say: the saga ends with a bang! I guess everyone knows the story by now, so only a few words about it. The movie takes place 3 years after the end of Episode II and the beginning of the Clone War. We're at the climax of the conflict between the Republic and the Separatists, with a space battle in which Anakin and Obi Wan try to save the abducted Chancellor Palpatine. After his rescue, we witness the conflict between Palpatine and the Jedi as well as Anakin's role in all this. So much for the story. Of course it's getting more complex as the plot thickens, but I take it everyone knows that it ends with the rise of the Empire and the downfall of Anakin Skywalker. What makes Episode III such a great experience, why is it simply the movie of the year and one of the best of all time - in my opinion? There are several reasons, and I'll start with the CGI. Of course, one can expect ILM to create incredible special effects, but with Episode III they have outdone themselves. They're creating whole creatures, soldiers, landscapes and even worlds out of nothing, and everything looks so stunning. The landscape of Mustafar, the different worlds on which the Jedi are murdered during the "Order 66" sequence or the opening space battle are so full of beautiful details that it's a joy to watch. Every single frame contains an undeniable beauty, and in fact Episode III is perhaps the visually most stunning movie of all time. This time, ILM also has created some unbelievably realistic CGI-creatures. Yoda looks now much more like his Episode V equivalent, and General Grievous as well as his Magna-Droid bodyguards are not only impressively detailed and textured, but also show how good the interaction between human actors and CGI creatures can be, something you can see in Ewan McGregor's fight scene with Grievous and the magna droids. It looks stunning, and I give a lot of credit to Ewan and the ILM crew for creating such complex fights. The action and lightsaber fights are magnificent and above anything we've seen this year, whether it is the breathtaking opening space battle or the dramatic final duel between Anakin and Obi Wan. In the field of sound and music, Episode III surpasses all expectations. The sound effects are clear and cool as always, no much news here. But John Williams' score is near perfection. Not only does it bridge the gap between the Prequels and the OT in a marvelous way, but it also shows the drama of Anakin Skywalker with sheer beauty. Hearing some pieces really brings tears to my eyes. So in the technical field, Star Wars Episode III fully succeeds. But what about story and characters? They're great, really. I already mentioned that the storyline gets more complex during the running time as the Clone Wars end, the Republic falls and Anakin turns to the Dark Side. You really should have seen the other movies in order to understand everything. What's so great about the story is the fact that it leads into Episode IV almost perfectly, almost every single question a fan could have asked is answered. The story also succeeds because of the actors. Yes, you heard that right. The actors in Star Wars are terribly underrated, and I don't know why. They all get the job done, and some are stealing the show with stellar performances. Ewan McGregor was great in Episode I & II, he was always the perfect Obi Wan, but in this one, he's even better. You can really see the sadness Obi Wan feels because of Anakin's betrayal; McGregor does a great job portraying that. Hayden Christensen was heavily criticized for his acting in Episode II, although he did well back then. In Episode III, he manages to play the complex character of Anakin in a believable way, we can really understand his reasons for his actions. Natalie Portman wasn't that important in this one, and she's not that great, slightly above average. The supporting actors are also quite good, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee, Jimmy Smits and Frank Oz get the job done with ease. But the real star in this movie is Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine/Darth Sidious. His acting is outrageously brilliant, especially in the scenes where he is trying to lure Anakin to the Dark Side. He obviously enjoys being in the spotlight, and his performance is even better than the one he provided us with in Return of the Jedi. The dialogues are mostly okay, nothing to complain about, except for some exchanges between Anakin and Padmé. Episode III is, as George Lucas mentioned, really a dark film. The atmosphere is sometimes depressing, as the end of the movie is already clear: everything is lost, we can only wait for the new hope in Episode IV. And some scenes portray this mood perfectly: I'll just say Order 66, a masterpiece thanks to Lucas' direction, Williams' music and ILM's work, and it will certainly make you cry. There are also some scenes unfit to be seen by a younger audience, like Anakin's fate on Mustafar. All in all, Lucas has created a worthy final for the Star Wars saga, and thanks to Episode III, Star Wars will go down in cinematic history as the greatest saga ever. Thank you for all the years of fun and excitement, Mr. Lucas!

The Name of the Rose (1986)

Nearly flawless masterpiece

[9/10 · 2 October 2005]

"Der Name der Rose" takes us back into a Benedictine monastery in the year 1327 a.d. One of the monks dies under mysterious circumstances, and the Franciscan monk William of Baskerville and his apprentice Adso of Melk are asked to investigate the matter. While more and more monks are being murdered, which leads some to the conclusion that the apocalypse is near, William is slowly discovering the truth behind the terrible murders, revealing corruption and perversity going on in the monastery. But William must find the truth quick, as the infamous inquisitor Bernardo Gui is sent by the Vatican to investigate the incidents, and he is well known for acting mercilessly... I haven't read the novel the movie is based on, but nevertheless, "Der Name der Rose" is an outstanding movie with few to none flaws. But what makes this flick so great? Above all, it's the fact that we get a historically accurate and shocking glimpse at the circumstances in medieval monasteries. There's nothing holy or in the name of God; most of the monks are ignorant or perverse. Then, of course, the actors in this one are magnificent, with Sean Connery shining throughout the movie and proving that he is one of the greatest actors alive; he brings the intelligent yet arrogant William of Baskerville to life. But one has to give the other actors credit as well, especially those playing the almost insane monks (Berenger, anyone?). Yet it is sad to see what has happened to Christian Slater: in this one, he shows that he indeed is a talented actor, but today he ends up in crap like "Alone in the Dark". The storyline is very intriguing (yet I don't know how faithful it is to the book), thanks to a great script and the film's perfect pacing. There's no scene that feels too long or too short; and the slower paced scenes are in perfect balance with the faster and more intense sequences. The movie also takes its time to introduce and deepen the characters. This, along with a dark and fascinating mood and a fitting soundtrack, creates an atmosphere that sucks you into the storyline. Honestly, I can't think of any flaws in "Der Name der Rose". Congratulations, Monsieur Annaud. You have created a masterpiece.

The NeverEnding Story III (1994)

Another crappy sequel

[2/10 · 12 September 2005]

I admit that the first part of the "Neverending Story" saga ranks as one of my favorite fantasy movies, because it just had everything you need for a good fantasy flick: beautiful sets, good actors, a great story, and most importantly, you could actually feel the magic of movie-making in almost every scene. "Neverending Story II" was a bit of a letdown, but still an enjoyable flick. And then we got this terrible piece of garbage, called "Neverending Story III". It's always a difficult task to make a sequel to a good and successful movie; so producing a third part is even more complicated. Still, there are some great Part IIIs, like Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (part 3 of the OT), Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (part 3 of the PT), Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade or Back to the Future III. They all succeed by staying true to the original movie's formula, having the same main actors, cleverly introducing new characters or expanding the storyline of the forerunners (and by having a big budget, by the way). Unfortunately, does neither of the things mentioned above. Because I don't want to say too much about this disgraceful sequel, only a small rundown of why it sucks so bad: 1. The setting was changed. The story now takes place in the real world, no longer in Fantasia. That's a good idea, but it simply doesn't work at all, mainly because of the interaction of the Fantasia-characters with the real world (what's with the Rock Biter singing "Born to be Wild"? Or a fantasy character mentioning Las Vegas? How do they know that stuff? Doesn't make sense at all. 2. The movie is unbelievably silly. I just say Rock Biter family...what a terrible scene. 3. The personality of some characters has changed. That's especially bad with the childlike Empress. She's no longer childlike, kind, smart, caring and lovable, but a snobby teenager. 4. The movie was made cooler, or at least it was supposed to be cooler, for example by introducing the (incredibly dumb) Nasties and the above mentioned "Born to be Wild" thing. 5. The actors are simply terrible, neither of them is convincing or even has potential (except for Jack Black). 6. The visual effects are truly horrible, even the first part looks way better. But that might be because of the rather low budget. Still, the way the fantasy characters are created and presented in this one is embarrassing, just look at Falcor or the Rock Biter (did he shrink since part 1?) 7. The most cruel thing: Atreyu is missing, for no apparent reason. So one of the most popular and beloved characters is simply wasted. Normally, you don't throw away interesting characters like him in any movie series. It's a crime he was missing. If you're a fan of the book and the first (or even the second) flick, then avoid this stinker at all costs. Simply watching it could make you cry, because it destroys it's forerunners legacy. Pure and utter garbage.

Tanguy (2001)

Believe it or not, it's good

[8/10 · 9 September 2005]

Since I didn't enjoy "La vie est un long fleuve tranquille", I didn't expect too much from "Tanguy" when I went to the cinema. Surprisingly enough, the movie was good. I mean really good. Monsieur Chatiliez, the director of "La vie..." and "Tanguy", shows that french comedies can actually be a thousand times better than some modern American comedies. Because Tanguy has it all: this movie has a soul, charming and believable actors, a good script and well thought gags. The movie tells the story of Tanguy, a 28-year old guy who still lives with his parents. One day, his mother Edith can't take this situation any longer, and together with her husband she tries to get Tanguy out their home. It's easy to see that this storyline is a good basis for some great gags and funny situations; and the movie eventually succeeds. I left the cinema with satisfaction, because I saw one of the few intelligent - and most importantly funny - modern comedies. I recommend this gem to anyone who's tired of stupid and underwhelming American comedy-flicks like "Dumb and Dumber".

Downfall (2004)

Impressive

[10/10 · 12 November 2004]

Considering the fact how hard it is to make an adequate movie about the Third Rich and especially Hitler himself, "Der Untergang" is a superb portrayal of the last days of Hitler, his minions and the Third Rich. First of all, Bruno Ganz' performance is magnificent, brilliant, perfect. You're beginning to think he IS the Fuehrer, his look, his mannerism, his sick philosophy of life and his downfall are absolutely convincing. After seeing him you can finally understand why so many people back then were attracted by his charisma, but thanks to Ganz' performance you do not forget about the terrible crimes he committed by his followers and about the evil inside the sick soul of this man. His minions weren't that important in this movie, except for Joseph Goebbels and his family. Heinrich Himmler, the ReichsfuehrerSS, was portrayed as the man he was: an idiotic coward, who was in great part responsible for the Holocaust and still believed in a peace agreement with the allied forces, although this idea was completely out of place. Albert Speer as one of the less criminal national socialists was also quite good interpreted. Martin Bormann, Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, 3 other important Nazis, got too few screen time, and Hermann Goering didn't even show up, he was just mentioned. I think Goebbels wasn't portrayed that authentic as he could have, due to the fact he was the most intelligent of Hitler's inner circle, but in some scenes he seemed like someone who could just repeat his own slogans. The part about Traudl Junge and the boy from the Volkssturm, Peter, was also quite good, but it was clearly overshadowed by the Hitler/ minion part. There are also some surprisingly well done battle- sequences taking place in Berlin, in which you can also see a part of the pretty high amount of blood and violence, for example when a soldier gets shot through his head, some officers are committing suicide or the killing of the Goebbels children, a scene which gave me the chills. Due to it's high authenticity, great actors and an important message, this movie could become as important as Schindler's List already is, in order to show today's youth the insanity of Hitler and the whole Third Rich and to make them avoid racist and extreme right wing organisations. All in all, this is one of the best German flicks I've ever seen - although there isn't such a huge number of good German movies. 10/10