Ghostbusters (2016)

Summary 
Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan band together to stop the otherworldly threat.

Genre : Fantasy/Comedy
Country : USA

Cast : 
Kristen Wiig : Erin Gilbert

Melissa McCarthy : Abby Yates
Kate McKinnon : Jillian Holtzmann
Leslie Jones : Patty Tolan

Director : Paul Feig

My opinion

“I'm Ed Mulgrave.
I'm the historian at the Aldridge Mansion,
and I believe it's haunted.
If you could just come take a look.“

There's one thing I'm firmly convinced of. And that's to stay clear of milestones in film history. A milestone is a film that isn't necessarily brilliant or an absolute masterpiece, but it made a particular impression on me. For instance "Evil Dead". For me that movie is a milestone because this was the first real horror I watched and I afterwards I wasn't haunted by traumatic nightmares. When I left the cinema hall after watching "Grease", I thought I was as tough and cool as Danny. "Back to the Future" remains a rock-solid classic for me. And "Ghostbusters" from 1984 was also such a milestone. It became a kind of a hype and it'll still be appreciated by film lovers after 50 years and broadcasted on television on Saturdaynight. I'm sure no one will remember this remake after lets say a year. It may safely be added to the list of unnecessary made and totally failed remakes in the history of motion pictures.

The highlight of this film is the appearance of the original Ghostbusters actors: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and a bust of Harold Ramis (who unfortunately died in 2014). And the funniest thing is that Murray plays a skeptic who doesn't believe in the existence of ghosts. And strangely enough, Chris "Thor" Hemsworth was the funniest character from the new cast. Funny, the majority thinks the opposite about these two last facts. For the rest, this is simply a duplicate of the original film. The storyline is almost identical (with some minor adaptations). The biggest difference are the special effects. They look sophisticated and are very impressive compared to those of 32 years ago (quite obviously) and a Ghostbusters team that consists entirely of women. I don't have a problem with that. But nonetheless it's still not clear to me why they've chosen this option.

Maybe it's me or the fact that the nostalgic value of this film is very high. Perhaps the opinion about this film will be different if you're from a younger generation and you've never seen the first version. Sure, in that case it's still brand new and highly original. But someone like me who's part of an older generation and who has enjoyed the original film, just sees a duplicate, full of recycled ideas and reused objects, infused with not so humorous humor. Admit it, when you smile more about the fumbling of a hunk, who impersonated "Thor" once, this raises all kind of questions. Maybe it's because I have no affinity with the female so-called humorous actress Melissa McCarthy. I thought "The Heat" was horrible. And I pulled the plug on "Spy" after half an hour because I was bursting into tears rather than in laughter. Who you gonna call? Not these ghostbusters for sure ...

Nonetheless, it's admirable they persisted in making this reboot. You don't need to be a genius to realize that this version would be overshadowed by its predecessor and would never manage to beat it. And if you don't have a unique storyline and all kinds of objects from the first film are used again (the paranormal apparitions Slimer and the Marsh Mellow Man, the famous tune, their headquarter and the Ghostbusters vehicle), there's only one thing that remains : the interaction between the main characters and the humor. And even that was toe-curling bad and irritating. The humor used by Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd was so natural, genuin and ingenuous. What's demonstrated here is so plastic and as implausible as the ghostly entities that flood New York City. Well, I stand by my first statement. Milestones are untouchable.

My rating 2/10
Links : IMDB

Noble (2014)

Summary 
Vietnam. 1989. Fourteen years after the end of the war. When Irish woman Christina Noble flies into Ho Chi Minh City she leaves behind an extraordinary life story. But the best is yet to come. Christina lands in a country "that she wouldn't be able to show you on a map". With a few dollars, a dream and her own hard-won courage, she is about to change everything. For hundreds of thousands of people. Forever.

Genre : Drama
Country : UK/Vietnam

Cast : 
Deirdre O'Kane : Christina Noble

Sarah Greene : Christina Noble (Middle)
Gloria Cramer Curtis : Christina Noble (Young)

Director : Stephen Bradley

My opinion

“And what's your name?
My name is
Mr. Reception Desk.
That's a nice name. “

"Noble" is nothing more than a biographical film about the (for me anyway unknown) Irish Christina Noble (Deirdre O'Kane). After a troubled and difficult life she has set a noble (Yep) target. Namely to offer the street children of Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam a better future. Mostly you see Christina in Vietnam moving heaven and earth to achieve her goal. A not so obvious task in which she has to convince the authorities and at the same time she tries to jolt foreign businessmen's consciences, so they are generous enough with their financial support. And so she tries to set up a shelter for those children in postwar Vietnam.

There's one thing you have to admit. This exceptional lady has sufficient reserves in terms of perseverance. Despite all the setbacks in her youth and the opposition she faces in Vietnam, she never gives up. And this thanks to her positive attitude. Throughout the film you're looking back at the turbulent life of Christina. It all starts in the slums of Dublin in the 40s. As a little girl (Gloria Cramer Curtis) she dreams of becoming such a famous singer like Doris Day. When her mother dies of tuberculosis and her father is unable to support his family (due to an alcohol problem), she ends up in a nunnery. In later life she's (Sarah Greene) a victim of a gang rape which in turn results in an unwanted pregnancy and her newborn son to be adopted. After moving to Birmingham with her best friend Joan (Ruth Negga), she is confronted with a cheating spouse and domestic violence. So you can safely say that Christina's life wasn't exactly rosy.

Perhaps that's why Christina demonstrates these unconstrained efforts when she arrives (thanks to a vision) in Vietnam. She is shocked by the appalling conditions in which children have to survive there. Perhaps the traumas of her own life are an extra motivation and she wants to give these poor children what she had missed all her life. A bit of security, affection, love and a hope for a better future. For her, poverty in Vietnam is equal to that what she experienced in Ireland.

Although the film lends itself to become a melodramatic tearjerker, they knew to avoid this anyway. Obviously Christina Noble isn't the only benefactress in this ruthless world. But her commitment and determination ensured that "The Christina Noble Children's Foundation" has already helped hundreds of thousands of children. Most likely this film will be broadcasted as an ordinary television drama. But the performances of the different Christina's are of an exceptionally high level. And despite the realistic and deadly serious storyline, they managed to incorporate a sliver of humor by means of a hilarious hotel receptionist. And in all honesty. This time it wasn't really bothering me that they used such a predictably happy ending once again.

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB

Oculus (2013)

Summary 
A woman tries to exonerate her brother, who was convicted of murder, by proving that the crime was committed by a supernatural phenomenon.

Genre : Horror
Country : USA

Cast : 
Karen Gillan : Kaylie Russell

Brenton Thwaites : Tim Russell
Katee Sackhoff : Marie Russell

Director : Mike Flanagan

My opinion

Who was that lady in your office today?
Yeah, Dad, who was that lady in your office today?
What lady?
I don't know. Just some lady. 

Halloween night. All channels are stuffed with horrors to entertain you during this scary night. Unfortunately these are always the same recurring wellknown movies (I'm sure the budget of the Film Department isn't that big). Best I choose one from the seemingly endless list of never watched horror movies. And I always wanted to watch "Oculus" (despite some negative comments I've read). And I must say, I was still pleasantly surprised. Not because of the horrifying or frightening content since that part was almost missing completely. But it was because of the ingeniously interwoven storylines from the past and the present that fascinated me. Although it caused a huge muddle in the end. At some point I was so confused, I didn't even know in which time cycle the story took place.

The mirror is a very popular prop in horrors (a nice compilation of famous "mirror scares" can be found here). Personally, I really liked the way a mirror was used in the film "Candyman. In "Oculus" apparently an old, antique mirror is the source of all sorts of situations that get out of hand. Only one could ask whether or not this mirror is causing people in this particular family to see delusions. Or is it just a genetic disorder? And because of that disorder the psyche of those persons start mixing illusions with reality. And that's the sophisticated part of this movie. The intertwining of reality and illusion. Are there indeed dark forces hiding in this mirror? And are these forces encouraging an individual to commit heinous acts? Or are those personal delusions playing a major part?

Are Kaylie (Karen Gillan) and Tim Russell (Brenton "Gods of Egypt" Thwaites) both victim of the so-called "fuzzy-trace theory"? After many years, it's Kaylie who comes up with a plan to prove that her father wasn't the one who tortured and murdered their mother, but that he was manipulated by the evil mirror. Her brother Tim just spent 10 years in a psychiatric institution to get all his facts straight and heal from the trauma he experienced after putting a bullet through his father's head. Apparently that doesn't seem to bother Kaylie. She drags him back to the family home where she installed the dreaded mirror surrounded by cameras, electronic gadgets and a security system with an iron pin. She's determined to film the psychic influence of the mirror and put a halt to the infinite series of mysterious deaths by destroying the evil mirror. Tim throws in all sorts of counter arguments. Kaylie thinks it's all crap what he's saying and blames it on the years of confinement and indoctrination by the treating psychiatrists. Or is Tim healed after years of therapy and he got rid of the notorious familial mental state?

"Oculus" isn't about creepy or bloody situations. It's virtually never scary. So, there won't be any nail biting moments. And except the apple incident and a tooth extraction, this film is almost bloodless. Yet I found it exciting in some way. Two story lines from two different periods perfectly alternated, so the whole story is revealed in a slow way. As already mentioned earlier, this is somewhat exaggerated at the end, which in turn can cause confusion. In terms of performances are the teenagers Kaylie (Annalise Basso) and Tim (Garrett Ryan) the most convincing. The way they evolve from carefree youngsters into scared teens, is played beautifully. The horror on their face looks tremendously realistic. The older alter egos were rather one-dimensional. Obviously there's the tension between them as a believer and nonbeliever. "Oculus" is not really groundbreaking and certainly won't cause a stir in the horror landscape. But for horror fans it's still an enjoyable movie that rises effortlessly above the average. I even dare say it's a horror for beginners. I'm convinced that they can enjoy a peaceful night afterwards! Even if they take a look in the bathroom mirror while refreshing themselves ....

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB

Heist (2015)

Summary 
When their attempt to rob a casino owned by the feared gangster Pope goes awry and a shootout ensues, Vaughn and Cox are forced to flee on foot and hijack city Bus 657 and take the passengers hostage.

Genre : Crime/Action
Country : USA

Cast : 
Jeffrey Dean Morgan : Vaughn

Robert De Niro : The Pope
Dave Bautista : Cox

Director : Scott Mann

My opinion

“I'm here to ask a favor, a big one.
How big?
$300,000 big, at least.”

"The Trust" was about a robbery in "Ocean's Eleven" style by a "Dumb and Dumber" looking duo. In this film it's "Ocean's Eleven" mixed with portions of "Speed". But this time without an adorable Sandra Bullock at the steering wheel. Robert De Niro doesn't need to prove that he's a class actor. That's beyond dispute. But if you look at the list of films he played in the last few years, I can only conclude that he just did a favor for a bunch of friends. Sometimes his contribution is terribly limited (as in "The bag man" and "American Hustle"). Mentioning his name is obviously part of a purely commercial strategy so the movie will get some extra attention. And there are a few films of such a pitiful level, that you start to believe that De Niro is hopelessly addicted to acting and he can't refuse to cooperate each time a script is shoved under his nose.

Mind you, this isn't the movie made in 2001 with Gene Hackman and Danny DeVito playing in it. I myself have never seen this version. But I am convinced that it can easily surpass this uninspired creation. Perhaps the chosen title is already a sign on the wall. Is there an even more meaningless and unoriginal title as "Heist"? Maybe it was intentionally to choose this title just to match it with the overall concept. Ultimately, there's nothing startling or innovative about this movie. It's a line up of clichéd events. Believe me. After one night, most details of the movie will be erased from your memory.

Luke Vaughn (Jeffrey Dean), an ex-soldier and blackjack dealer at a casino of The Pope (Robert De Niro), an unscrupulous mafia boss, is facing a huge problem. The procedure for his terminally ill daughter costs a fortune. His plea directed at The Pope is being rejected. The only choice he has (apparently) is to rob the vault of this thriving casino with the cooperation of the disgruntled bouncer Cox (Dave Bautista). That the robbery wouldn't go smoothly was predictable. And during their escape they hijack a bus. What follows is a chase by a squadron of policemen and also the furious entourage of the Pope. It looked like "Smokey and the Bandit", but less humorous.

The key words that first occurred to me were unoriginal, an obvious development and laziness. I was experiencing a whole range of deja vu's. And De Niro is a class actor who can make a memorable impression with ease, but his talent alone isn't enough to hide the fact that this was a not so exciting and rather boring movie. And Gina Carano isn't exactly the person who'll lift this movie to a higher level either. Not to mention the pretty senseless ending. It's because I'm a huge fan of De Niro that I didn't pull the emergency brake much earlier.

My rating 3/10
Links : IMDB

Let's Be Evil (2016)

Summary 
Three chaperones are hired to supervise an advanced learning program for gifted children, who wear Augmented Reality Glasses to assist in their education. Contained within a secure, underground facility, events quickly spiral out of control.

Genre : SF
Country : UK

Cast : 
Elizabeth Morris : Jenny

Kara Tointon : Tiggs
Elliot James Langridge : Darby

Director : Martin Owen

My opinion

“The past can define our future.
But I won’t let it.”

The opening scene of this sci-fi horror was promising. Even better, it was a snapshot that instantly caught my attention. A sublime and fascinating scene after which I snuggled in my cozy chair in anticipation for something magnificent. I was immediately convinced that this was going to be a hell of a movie. What did you expect? With a score like that on IMDb, this couldn't go wrong. The frozen image of a puzzled looking girl smeared with blood, seamlessly merged with a tv-show where we get the melancholic picture of a generation with no future. The education system needs to be changed so a new generation of intelligent young kids is being produced instead of a generation of obese and hopeless youngsters . The images looked futuristic with a suitable graphic design. And then the flashy google glass lookalike is introduced. A gadget we'll be watching through the rest of the film.

Just recently I've seen "Jeruzalem" where they used the same kind of glasses. A disappointing film though. The only feat I was excited about was that high-tech device. Unfortunately this facet of "Let's be evil" became a rather annoying element to me. Even worse. I got so sick of it that I wanted to give up already halfway the movie. The rickety soundtrack was perhaps an omen. Admit it. If you want to create a futuristic movie, you shouldn't be using those stale Jean Michelle-Jarre polyphonic sounds. It felt as if I was watching a third-rate SF from the 80s. Unfortunately these weren't the only disturbing elements. When the end credits rolled over the screen I made my final conclusion. This was probably the worst thing I've seen this year.

First, the overall picture you get to see almost the whole movie. The fact that it all happens in a virtual environment (the three selected candidates can only see by making use of the spectacles) was at first an exciting and interesting display. It all looked great and wellknown (especially for those who sometimes sit behind a screen to have fun with some PC games), but it has one major drawback. After half an hour of hazy and swirling images, you gradually start to hate it. Biggest advantage is that a not so talented cameraman with virtually no experience gets away with it when some blurry and out of focus fragments appear in between. Combine this with a dark underground bunker where the lighting consists of pulsating lights in all sorts of colors and your irritation level is reached very quickly. It looked as if the whole story was set in a concrete submarine.

And then you have the actors who were recruited based on some unknown requirements and who are participating in the Posterity Project. Judging from the conversations they have, the requirements concerning the level of intelligence needed for this job wasn't very high. Their ultimate function is to observe the group of teenagers that are also present in this underground facility (spending their days waving their hands in the air). And when necessary they accompany a lost teenager back to the group. Not exactly intriguing and exciting. The fact that the group of children organize a sort of artificial uprising afterwards in which they manipulate the electronic system in an incomprehensible way, was the start of a confusing outcome and a ridiculous denouement.

Finally, the part that frustrated me the most. I had no idea what the theme of this movie was about. And in the end, I still didn't know it. Perhaps it's me getting older and a mild version of dementia sneaked in my system, but I couldn't make head nor tail of it. What was the opening sequence about and how did this correlate with the rest of the movie? And the end didn't clarify anything either. In a subtle way they tried to demonstrate the dangers of technologies and the way it's intertwined in our everyday lives. Kind of obvious. But eventually I still had a few questions about the film. Occasionally I like to watch a sophisticated film with a not so simple storyline. But this was a level too high for me apparently. I suggest however that the creators of the IMDb website check their algorithms, because the score given to "Let's be Evil" is totally irrational. Or was there an artificial intervention by the makers of this movie? Well, that's a spooky thought!

My rating 1/10
Links : IMDB

Cut Snake (2014)

Summary 
Set in Melbourne in the mid-1970s, Cut Snake tells the story of Sparra Farrell, an ex-convict who is trying to make a new life for himself in a new city. He has found honest work and even becomes engaged but the prospect of this new life is challenged when his foreboding and charismatic cell mate Pommie tracks him down upon his own release.

Genre : Crime/Drama
Country : Australia

Cast : 
Alex Russell : Sparra

Sullivan Stapleton : Pommie
Jessica De Gouw : Paula

Director : Tony Ayres

My opinion

“Good day, Paula.
I'm Jim, but you can call me Pommie.”

My expectations are pretty high strung whenever I encounter an Australian movie again. I was pleasantly surprised already a few times after discovering a film from Down Under. Even though "Cut Snake" put me on the wrong track at a certain moment, the film in general wasn't really surprising. The denouement was even extremely predictable. The two main characters Jim "Pommie" Stewart (Sullivan Stapleton) and Mervyn "Sparra" Farrell (Alex Rusell) shared a grim past. That was kind of obvious. I didn't expect those two former prisoners to have a connection on a whole different level. At first it seemed Pommie had traced his partner in crime just to convince him to pick up the thread on a criminal level. As it becomes clear that Sparra has chosen to walk the right path, this throws a spanner in the works. Sparra has resolutely opted for the ordinary life with his fiancee Paula (Jessica De Gouw). Even a poorly paid job can't convince him to go back to a world of crime. What follows is a complex and tumultuous love triangle.

It's safe to say that "Cut Snake" is a melodramatic thriller. What certainly stands above the rest in this film is the acting of Sullivan Stapleton. Pommie is the type of figure who makes you feel a little uneasy instantly. A burly, heavily tattooed and intimidating appearance whose uncontrollable rage suddenly breaks out and then quickly disappears. Unerringly if unwittingly, Sparra is sucked into a destructive spiral of aggression and violence. And he himself will end up in an inner conflict. Even though it appears from the outset it's heading for a typical crime film, the movie makes an unexpected twist, changing it into a very different mood. In contrast to the terrifying face of Stapleton, Alex Rusell has an angelic face. An ordinary guy who appeared out of nowhere in Paula's life and whose dark past remained hidden until Pommie appeared on the scene. 

The film is set in the 70s and situated in an Australian town near Melbourne. The whole film is made in the outspoken style from the 70's. Clothing, vehicles and used soundtrack fit perfectly. My compliments to the decor department. And if you're wondering what the film title exactly means, then I suggest you look up the Australian statement "mad as a cut snake". "Cut Snake" is an indie with a two-faced character. On the one hand it's a simple crime film. On the other hand it's a rather bold melodramatic love story. The twist incorporated in the film is not without a risk. An experiment where some of the viewers will have second thoughts about. I appreciated the subtlety with regard to how everything was imaged. No overly explicit scenes were being used. Not even during the violent scenes. The highlight for me was the moment the tough and resolute Pommie emotionally crashed and briefly showed how fragile and helpless he was. A strong and persuasive piece. Are you an adventurous movie lover? Then this film is really something for you.

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB

Alice through the looking glass (2016)

Summary 
Alice returns to the magical world of Underland, only to find the Hatter in a horrible state. With the help of her friends, Alice must travel through time to save the Mad Hatter and Underland's fate from the evil clutches of the Red Queen and a clock like creature, known as Time.

Genre : Fantasy
Country : USA

Cast : 
Johnny Depp : Hatter Tarrant Hightopp

Mia Wasikowska : Alice
Sacha Baron Cohen : Time

Director : James Bobin

My opinion

“I do not know who you are.
You're not my Alice.
My Alice believes in me.”

I've never been a fan of the "Alice in Wonderland" fairy tale. It's a rather bizarre story that took shape in the inventive mind of Lewis Carroll. Not that it lacked imagination, but I had the impression that the wizardry with literary tricks got the most attention. A story richly filled with roguish puns. When I started watching this movie, there was one thing in my disadvantage. My total ignorance about the character Alice. I didn't even bother to watch the previous movie "Alice in Wonderland" from 2010. So that makes that a character like Hatter (Johnny Depp) a complete stranger to me.

The opening scene of the film actually is a reflection of the rest. A highly professional imaged pursuit at sea, with Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) skillfully maneuvering her boat over a reef while using a seemingly improbable sail trick. Why those Malaysian pirates were chasing her, was completely unclear to me and nowhere explained afterwards. And that's also the overall image I have about this movie. Superbly imaged, but so unclear and very confusing. Of course my lack of knowledge about Alice is a leading factor. But the way Underland (where Alice returns by stepping through a magical mirror) is designed, is truly phenomenal. The beautiful colors splash right off the screen. A surreal world full of wondrous things and enchanting characters. It reminded me a bit of "Oz the Great and Powerful" where you also could admire a multicolored wonderland.

And not only the imaginative scenery are stunning. Also the wonderful characters look unreal and mega-fantastic at the same time. Alice sees her old friends again after a long time. And it's a colourful group of fantasy figures. Absolem, Thackery and Cheshire Cat are wonderful, brisk animations. Tweedle dee and dum (Matt Lucas) look witty, yet scary in a way. Mirana, the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) is rather ...well ... colorless. Iracebeth, the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is not only an annoying character, but also an interesting and at time sometimes madcap character. And in between whirls Alice. She isn't surprised about this miraculous world, since it is not the first time she ends up there. And obviously you'll meet Hatter Tarrant Hightopp, a crazy and carnivalesque hatter, whose health rapidly deteriorates. The only remedy is to find back his family. But seemingly, this isn't so obvious. Apparently they've died in the past. The only way to succeed, is to travel back in time. And that 's exactly what Alice is going to ask Time (Sacha Baron Cohen). How can she go back in time and prevent Hatter's family of being killed? And that's when the majestic part of Cohen (aka Borat) begins. He's the personification of time. And he plays it in a sublime and magnificent way.

Visually, the film is just phenomenally beautiful. Content wise it's terribly chaotic. At certain moments I really couldn't keep up with the story. It realy felt as if they tried to cram lots of facts, characters and storylines in one film. And those time travels weren't making it simple either. Even the eccentric Depp couldn't convince me. The whole story revolves around him in a way. As a result he's in the picture lots of times. To be honest, his character started to irritate me a bit after a while. I'd rather would have seen those other characters in action a bit more often. Like Time for instance. Unprecedented the best part in this Alice in Wonderland chapter. A pedant, despotic figure who isn't afraid to put you in an endless time loop. Assisted by his submissive employees (called minions) he controls time in this wonderland. And he carries out this painstaking work, while residing in his impressive "Palace of Time". A visually striking building and imaginative creation. But eventually I came to the same conclusion. Alice in Wonderland is not "my cup of tea."

My rating 5/10
Links : IMDB