IndustriousAngel

BWell, from today's POV this would only be "C" but when it came out (1982), TRON was absolutely the coolest thing for us SF- and computer-games kids. Also, I'm a big fan of Moebius. The designs are really unique and easily recognisable even after 30 years. Sure, the effects were completely outdated even 5 years after but that was not the point - this was a new world created inside the computer! Maybe TRON was underwhelming at the box office, but it had an enormous impact on pupular culture (more than Disney's other nice SF film "The Black Hole", rather in the league of "Alien").The drawback is that it's nearly all style and little substance - the story itself and the acting are not that interesting. When I watched this in preparation for "Tron Legacy" I fast-forwarded quite a bit because, frankly, I got bored. Stil, I have a lot of love for this film!

I tried to watch this together with my son when it came out on DVD but made it only half way through. The charm of the 70s original is completely missing and I didn't care for the CGI. This felt "wrong" on so many levels that I stopped to bother, haven't watched the other prequel parts and have no wish to do so.

Tron Legacy + Tron?

My favourite Indy film too - a straight A+ meaning I could watch this at least once a month without getting tired of it! Those were the days ...

Tolkien himself was well aware of the problem with the eagles. From letter 210:"The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness. The alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire is absurd; it also makes the later capture of Gandalf by Saruman incredible, and spoils the account of his escape."

Bakshi's "LotR" suffers from the same problems as most of his films: The quality is extremely varying from scene to scene. It just doesn't look like a finished product - some scenes work while others are barely sketches. The same can be observed in "Fritz the Cat", "Wizards" and "Cool World". All those films look rushed, unfinished, incomplete ... as creative as Bakshi was, sadly he never had the discipline to see his projects through to the end. The "best" Bakshi film is still "Fire and Ice" - at least the quality of the animation is congruent from scene to scene, even if it's a lousy script.On the other hand, some of the scenes in "LotR" worked really well and had a magical touch, and they got me interested in Tolkien. I was 11 when it came out here and became so interested that they gave me "The Hobbit" as a christmas present the same year.

BThis is a beautifully realised joke and at the same time a declaration of love for good old Hollywood. (That's why it got so many Oscar nominations i think)The film is clever, the actors get their chance to "milk the giant cow", the dog is sweet, the music and costumes fitting, the jokes are funny ... these are very enjoyable 100 minutes! Still, the story is rather simple and lacks tension. So, only a "B" from me because I don't see the need to rewatch this - I'd rather watch "Frankenstein jr." one more time, that's funnier in almost every scene while also at the same time being a clever joke / love declaration.

The Artist Mo 6:00 pm only 20 people ... age 30+ mostly Trailers: Extremely/Incredibly; The Vow (no reactions ... "The Vow" really looks horrible btw) "The Artist" is ok (review in review section) but will not do big numbers here. The audience is just too limited. The ones who were there were satisfied but you can't build WOM on such small crowds. Funny thing: Since this is silent AND the music (if there at all) is often piano, it was VERY quiet in my theatre. There were some younger people there armed with crisps or popcorn and it was sooo sweet to hear them try not to disturb

The book was wonderful. They had neither the budget nor the talent nor the script to do justice to the book. Just thinking what Miyazaki (just an example) could have made out of this material makes me sad.I visited the Bavaria Studios in the late 80s where they showed us the sets and props for "Enemy Mine", "Neverending Story" and the sub from "Das Boot"; they were quite proud of their work on "Neverending Story" too but it really looked cheap even then. Today this film looks like a TV show.

As a comic geek I had to check this out, together with a friend who was also into comics - it was funny in some places but mostly forgettable and uninspired. We smiled through it to the end but I never bothered to watch it again or buy it. I had no desire to watch the sequel either.(For the record, I found "Howard the Duck" mildly enjoyable. This was far worse!)

It's a long time since I saw this - can't remember the details any more but I remember it as a real fun film! I'm not a big fan of M. Broderick but that's his film.

I'm a bit unsure about that film. On the one hand we have nice characters (Tom Cruise in his first lead role, Tim Curry, David Tennent - even the otherwise unknown Mia Sara is excellent and Alice Playten as Blix is memorable too), beautiful (if artificial) settings and Ridley Scott at the helm including his trademark lighting. On the other hand: Does the story told actually deserve all this talent? It's a rather thin one even if you take it as a metaphor for Princess Lily discovering her sexuality.The director's cut is a far better and darker experience. Also, Jerry Goldsmith's score is better than the Tangerine Dream one. And one of my favourite film songs is from Legend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4phn1xHpBas.Definitely worth watching and even has great rewatch value, still, only a "B" from me because of the thin story.

True Lies is lots of fun, yep. The horse + Arnie in the elevator; JLC striptease; the terrorist camera guy with his battery running low, the Harrier ...Have to rewatch Abyss some day, we saw it on the big screen then and I remember it as real good and claustrophobic but with a let-down ending. Anybody here who has seen the director's cut? is it much different?

It will make 230+ (if not more) alone from the european markets it's in already (6 or 7 countries only I believe), so yes it will!And this will about tie Avatars 4th weekend in Germany

It's rather horrible to tell the truth

Clever story, well executed, and Kevin Spacey delivers his usual top-notch performance. The twists make for a fun second viewing.However, the characters didn't draw me in - it was fun to watch but except for the sake of the mistery, I really didn't care what happened to whom.B

BThis was very painful to watch, even the "funny" scenes were very dark. The cinematography is spectacular, and as usual Aronofsky squeezes everything out of his actors - memorable and extreme performances. Excellent film, but only "B" from me because it's just too depressing, saw this once on the big screen and once at home and don't plan to watch it again. Except maybe a few selected scenes because of the sheer brilliance of the photography!My favourite from Aronofsky would be "The Wrestler", nearly tied with "Black Swan".

We enjoyed it at the theatre but don't plan to watch it again, so only a B from me.

Intouchables is a monster AND a real crowdpleaser ... I expected it to to "King's Speech"-numbers in Austria+Germany but it will do much better, could even reach 50mil combined. It's selling out showings here in its 3rd weekend and shows no signs of slowing! Muppets, alas, is not doing well which is a shame. WOM should be excellent (my crowd was completely in love with it) but with low numbers on opening weekend WOM can carry you only so far. I see 15mil max, probably lower. But the sensible (still hogh) budget and home video will save it so we'll get another one - at least I hope so!

The MuppetsFri 8:15pm35 people (less than 1/3 - horrible for an opening weekend)the trailers were all for children's films which was stupid since no one in the audience was under 25 and most 40+ I guess :lol:The film: AWell maybe I'm just being nostalgic here - the muppets being after all part of my childhood (me and my sister were very proud of our Muppet pyjamas and even performed sketches at home) - but my girl who has never been much into them also liked the film. There was so much enthusiasm on the screen that it would be actually hard to dislike it.Box-office wise this will not do big numbers here although WOM should be exceptional - the audience was completely into it, laughing, clapping and even humming and singing along - but I was expecting more like a sell-out on opening weekend. Maybe weather conditions played a role (heavy snowfall here in Tyrol the last days) but if this doesn't have a significant increase next weekend I'd expect it in the range of Tintin in Germany+Austria (about 15mil).

AWell maybe I'm just being nostalgic here - the muppets being after all part of my childhood (me and my sister were very proud of our Muppet pyjamas and even performed sketches at home) - but my girl who has never been much into them also liked the film. There was so much enthusiasm on the screen that it would be actually hard to dislike it.One thing: How did they spend those 45mil $ ??? There were no money shots or anything that would put this above 20mil max.

Robert Shaw as Quint is what's making this a real great film! Quiet Roy Scheider makes an excellent counterpart and Dreyfuss watches bigeyed how the action unfolds. Without the memorable characters this would be a somewhat boring film; there are many slow scenes carried only by the actors (the Indianapolis speech is a good example). Peter Weir said in the making-of for "Master and Commander" that Jaws is a fine example why you should not film at sea if not strictly necessary

I agree ... not really bad, even entertaining, but not asked-for either; what was fresh and original in MiB1 is now repetitive and uninspired. You know a film has serious script problems if they have to throw Lara Flynn Boyle as a dessous model at the audience.

A. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones were perfect casting, much of the success depends on this uneven pair. Very funny and some money shots too which generally worked well (often a problem with comedies ...)

Ok this would get a B from me under normal circumstances - it's harmless fun and there's nothing wrong with that - but I don't get how they could turn this cast and production values into such a boring film. This is uninspired filmmaking at it's worst, and there didn't even go anything wrong with the heist which should be a given with good heist films. Was there any tension anywhere? If yes, I missed it. (And no, the 60's original was not that much better but again, why throw a brillant cast and lots of money into a mediocre remake?)