Breaking Bad - Seasons 1-2 (2008-2009)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2008, 2009
	Creator: Vince Gilligan
	Actors: Bryan Cranston (Drive, Argo), Aaron Paul, Anna Gunn, Dean Norris (Total Recall, Starship Troopers)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Polar, Black Comedy
	Conditions of visioning: October 2017, VOD, 10" tablet screen
Synopsis: Walter White (Cranston), chemistry professor, is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Struggling with the news and looking for ways to provide for his family, he teams up with Jessie (Paul) to cook and sell crystal methamphetamine.
Review: Finally I started to watch this 9-years old TV-series that so many people talked about. The first season has only 7 episodes and flows directly into the second one which has 13, so it felt logical to review both in a single post. In Breaking Bad I immediately found again some of the spirit that I loved in Sons of Anarchy that started the same year by the way: not only because of the drug trafficking and the encounters with gangsters, but also the turn of events that keeps on getting worse for the main characters, to the point where you wonder if it is really worth all the trouble for the small amount of money they manage to salvage in the end. But there are major differences, in particular the fact that the "hero", Mr. White, starts up as a nice regular guy that has to face life-changing events. Events that will reveal a darker side of him. The fact that he is known to be so innocent explains for a while why nobody suspects him, in particular not his brother-in-law working for the Drug Enforcement Administration. I wonder for how many seasons this will remain credible. And the fact that he is new to the business makes for awkward situations. But what really sets the series apart for me is a kind of dark humor around death, like for example the whole S1E3 ..And the Bag's in the River and its corpse dissolution situation, or the recurrent quote "you crashed his head with an ATM" starting in S2E6 Peekaboo. Some episodes feel weaker like that same S2E6, and some side-stories are not very interesting (the shoplifting), but some episodes surprise you like S1E6 Crazy Handful of Nothin'. In S2E8 Better Call Saul we are introduced to the character of the lawyer that has been granted his own spin-off series with the same title after the end of Breaking Bad, and I have to admit I already like the guy and this episode was one of the most funny and offbeat. A word about the actors: I liked to see Dean Norris that I remember from his small role in Starship Troopers, a young Krysten Ritter that I know from Jessica Jones, and an apparition by Danny Trejo that made me dream of a cross-over with Sons of Anarchy, but that's not the case. Bryan Cranston is good in the lead role, I like him especially when he plays a kind of Chemistry Mc Gyver. Aaron Paul plays an interestingly tortured "side-kick", but his character will have to evolve to keep his place alongside Mr White. Also I already start to feel that his acting is a bit repetitive, like I felt for Charlie Hunnam in Sons of Anarchy. In general I understand the success of the show and watched the first two seasons in less than a week. I will take a little break but will continue soon for sure.
Rating: 8 /10

The big sick (2017)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2017
	Director: Michael Showalter
	Actors: Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan
	Country: USA
	Genre: Romance, Comedy
	Conditions of visioning: 30.10.2017, Schauburg, OV Sneak Preview, English version with German subtitle
Synopsis: Pakistan-born comedian Kumail Nanjiani (Nanjiani) and grad student Emily Gardner (Kazan) fall in love but struggle as their cultures clash. When Emily contracts a mysterious illness, Kumail finds himself forced to face her feisty parents, his family's expectations, and discovers his true feelings.
Review: From the very beginning and the set of characters in the first scenes, I expected a lot of clichés ... and they all came. The way his family behaves, the way his stand-up comedian friends behave, the way Emily's parents behave. I must admit that all these clichés have been somehow faded during the movie. His brother watches one gig of Kumail. Kumail's colleagues show some real friendship. Emily's parents open themselves to Kumail after a long peaceful struggle.  A few things looks not credible such as the fact that Emily's friends are invisible all along, how Kumail is called by a friend of Emily asking him to take care of her in the hospital. But all this is swapped away by the hilarious humour of Kumail. He is teasing Emily a lot, her parents, his own family, people in the bar. He jokes also about himself. A lot. About the cliché people have about people with beard and dark skin. And I loved all these speeches! The acting is medium. I like the spontaneity of Emily. But the parents of Kumail are like disguised. But well, I guess it is supposed to be so, as Kumail wrote the story!
Rating: 6 /10

The square (2017)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2017
	Director: Ruben Östlund
	Actors: Claes Bang, Elisabeth Moss, Terry Notary, Christopher Læssø
	Country: S, D, F, DK
	Genre: Drama
	Conditions of visioning: 29.10.2017, Schauburg, German version
Synopsis: Christian (Bang) is the respected curator of a contemporary art museum in Stokholm, a divorced but devoted father of two who drives an electric car and supports good causes. His next show is "The Square", an installation which invites museum guests to altruism, reminding them of their role as responsible fellow human beings. But sometimes, it is difficult to live up to your own ideals: Christian's foolish response to the theft of his phone drags him into shameful situations. Meanwhile, the museum's PR agency has created an unexpected campaign for "The Square". The response is overblown and sends Christian, as well as the museum, into an existential crisis.
Review: As preparation for the Nordic Film Days in Lübeck, I believed that watching this promising movie would be good. And it was an excellent idea!  Like the pieces of art in the museum, the movie bring the viewer in different moral and ethical situations. On The square (the piece of art in the movie, not the movie itself) there is a plate on which is written something like "Ein Zufluchtsort, wo Vertrauen und Fürsorge herrschen und alle die gleichen Rechte und Pflichten haben (A sanctuary of trust and caring. Within it we all share equal rights and obligations.)". Christian had to explain this to all donators of the museum, to his daughters, to the journalists. Only the daughters managed to focus on this statement without being distracted by the cocktails and food offered by the museum or by the scoop they could write about. From the movie one can have very different interpretations. The communication bubble society is depicted with acidity; the real interest of people for art and its objectives is reviewed via very different art viewers; the limits of art are not discussed explicitely but felt by the viewer through uncomfortable scenes; the abuse of own power by alpha-males; the scream for help and the reaction or lack of reaction. At the end it is hard to find a leitmotiv but I found mine. I saw the focus on "Help!" calls that we experience from the very first scene to the last ones. Woman followed by a violent man in the first scene; kid with Christian's colleague Michael in the seven/eleven; Christian's daughters coming home; etc). And the drama is that the middle class (in the streets and malls) and the high-society (in the museum events) that we view the most lack fully of empathy and readiness for help. On top of it, many scenes show the absurdity as part of the common life. The scenes are not focused on the absurd element and this puts things into perspective even more efficiently. To me the movie reminds of our role as human beings (not only trust and care) and manages to explain the pieces of art we see in the museum by enhancing the feelings the piece should give us with the image composition (the first scene of Help! in the street filled with a shoal of white-collar workers), the photography (the scene "So. What's my name?"), the cut (in her apartment) and the action (Gorilla performance artist) of each scene.
Rating: 10 /10

Seven sisters (2017)

	Also Known As: What happened to Monday?
	Year of first release: 2017
	Director: Tommy Wirkola
	Actors: Noomi Rapace, Willem Dafoe, Glenn Close, Marwan Kenzari
	Country: GB, F, B, USA
	Genre: SF, Action, Drama
	Conditions of visioning: 11.09.2017, Schauburg, OV Sneak Preview, English with German subtitle
Synopsis: Nicolette Cayman (Close) lead research on biology and her political power managed to impose rules of natality control. When Terrence Settman (Dafoe) gets seven daughters, these had to come in the clandestinity. Over years they develop differently and each of them goes out for school, later job work, only one day per week.
Review: The plot is amazing. And the evolution of the story is great! The seven sisters are used to give a rhythm to the story and the dramatic plot. When the first one disappears, they all believe she has been attacked and stick together against the controlling society. The story has no flaw but some contradictions that are hidden by the very rhythm action. Even if one could indeed say that Noomi Rapace did a great job in covering seven roles, but most of these are very cliché and simply done. Like put a hoody on the shoulders and you can play the rebel. Or wear glasses and sit on a chair and you can play the computer nerd. Due to the high pace it might have been impossible to make better. In one scene, the boyfriend of one sister sleeps with another sibling and this scene is really well acted by Noomi Rapace. I mean of course the part when she discovers his apartment and when she feels this kind of contact for the first time. The role of Cayman who already managed to let the natality get controlled but is still running for a political high position is quite contradictory. Ok. At the end, all these contradictions and weaknesses do not save the excellent plot that could have become an excellent movie. It is good to see a new movie by the Norwegian director Tommy Wirkola of Dead Snow.
Rating: 5 /10

Borg McEnroe (2017)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2017
	Director: Janus Metz
	Actors: Shia LaBoeuf, Sverrir Gudnason, Stellan Skarsgård, Scott Arthur
	Country: S, DK, FIN
	Genre: Documentary, Drama
	Conditions of visioning: 09.10.2017, Schauburg, OV Sneak Preview, Swedish/English/French with German subtitle
Synopsis: Björn Borg (Gudnason) and John McEnroe (LaBoeuf) enter the Wimbledon tennis tournament in 1980 with different perspectives. The gentleman Borg runs for the fifth title on the green and the fresh rookie McEnroe challenges Borg being controversed due to his hateful temperament on the court. Borg is supported by his wife and his trainer (Skarsgård). McEnroe is supported by his double partner Peter Fleming (Arthur).
Review: I am not much into tennis but McEnroe and Borg are known names. This was a kind of sport history for dummies to me, as I had no clue about who won from both. Not even that they were competitors! The story focuses on this one tournament in 1980 while I guess their actual friendship developped over more time than that.  Both adult characters are compared with their young characters with the clear goal to explain why they behave as adult as they do. And finally both have the same struggling core and this might be the reason for a friendship. Unfortunately to me, we do not go much into the characters and this friendship. We just scratch the surface. We see always the same scenes where McEnroe disputes with his friends. Always the same scenes where Borg is quiet and tense and contains his obvious anger against his trainer or familiar. Only the scene at the bar in Monaco with the bar tender who did not know Borg is really different because Borg's role is different and Gudnason can act differently. The actors are good in their roles. Both Shia LaBoeuf and Sverrir Gudnason. The old Skarsgård is as usual very good. I believe there was more space to develop these roles. The movie is to me entertaining and nice biopic about something I did not know, but not really a good movie.
Rating: 4 /10

Blade runner (1982)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 1982
	Director: Ridley Scott
	Actors: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Emmet Walsch, Daryl Hannah
	Country: USA
	Genre: SF, Romance, Polar
	Conditions of visioning: 04.10.2017, Schauburg, German version
Synopsis: In the future 2019 Los Angeles has become a cosmopolite city with cutting edge indutry. Bryant (Walsch) developped robots with artificial intelligence, also called replicants, for services. Deckart (Ford) is a blade runner, a cop specialised in killing replicants. When a small group of replicants arrive in town from a mining colony, it is panic in the police as these are suspected of terrorism. After having been tested by Rachel (Young), Bryant personal replicant, Deckart gets the task to kill them.
Review: Taking advantage of the release of Blade runner 2049, the distributors decided to show Blade Runner final cut as well. As I loved the movie seen on TV in my youth memories, I could not miss it! The story did not change with regard to my memories. The city is very dark and very rainy. The streets do not have much cars and almost no advertisements, but the few are almost only Asian signs.This settles the atmosphere I liked as a kid. The story itself is a kind of love story with few dialogues between Deckart and Rachel. Actually both are caricatures. The lonely policeman / hunter and the fragile woman. Also the way Deckart is claimed one of the best blade runners differs a lot from the action he is involved in. Running in the streets with a huge gun loaded and visible by anyone and not firmly in the hand, the pour fight skill in the street and in the building. But somehow the atmosphere got me hundred percent.  The future is not seen as world of consumption (like most of the recent SF movies), but rather as world of corporatist oppression.  The music by Vangelis enhances perfectly to the dark and mysterious atmosphere. The acting of the droids is amazing. They are all on the one hand very human with their logic and their emotions and in the other hand very inhuman being mercyless. They are actually not different from other humans in that sense. And from the category persepctives, these droids belong to the lowest cast and therefore the story is so captivating. It is a struggle for life of the lower class against the oppressing class.  I am not sure that LA or any town in the world will look like that in 2019, not even two years! But the imaginated world is fascinating. I discovered a lot of small things I did not remember from my childhood: the light-umbrella, the flying cars exclusively for the police.  The rating is biased because the movie was to me the start of dark science fiction. I guess the reason why it is considered as cult! Even if some sequences have some weaknesses.
Rating: 8 /10

Jack Reacher (2012)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2012
	Director: Christopher McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible 5-6)
	Actors: Tom Cruise (The Mummy, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow), Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day, Gone Girl), Richard Jenkins (Absolute Power, White House Down, The Cabin in the Woods), Werner Herzog, Jai Courtney (Life Free or Die Hard), Robert Duvall (Deep Impact)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Thriller, Action
	Conditions of visioning: 25.10.2017, VOD, 32" TV screen
Synopsis: After a sniper shooting that made five innocent victims, the obvious suspect calls for the help of a man that doesn't want to be found: Jack Reacher (Cruise). Against his first judgment, he will work with the man's attorney (Pike) to unveil the truth in an impartial manner.
Review: Well, here is another Action Thriller suited to the mega-star Tom Cruise and in which his character is perfect at what he does (I have just written the same when reviewing Collateral). In Jack Reacher it is even better for him as he plays a good guy quite unambiguously. But I found that this made his character less interesting in fact than in Collateral for example. He is just too perfect and virtuous that it becomes annoying and repetitive. The plot is not too bad at first, but I found it got weaker as soon as the real motives for the murders were explained, are not very convincing (going through all those schemes just for that!?!) and appear more like a McGuffin, i.e. an excuse to show how good Tom Cruise's character is, and how he can kick asses. The choice of director also goes in that direction: before showing Cruise on his best side in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation and its upcoming sequel, Christopher McQuarrie, known for the screenplay of Usual Suspects, had also written for Cruise the ones of Valkyrie, this Jack Reacher, Edge of Tomorrow, The Mummy and M:I5 & 6. But I guess the audience is still not tired of Cruise in such roles as Jack Reacher: Never Go Back was recently released. To be noted is the presence as secondary roles of Robert Duvall and Werner Herzog, this one usually more known as a director of cult films (like Fitzcarraldo) and now Documentaries (Into the Inferno)..
Rating: 4 /10

Collateral (2004)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2004
	Director: Michael Mann (Heat, Miami Vice)
	Actors: Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible 1-5), Jamie Foxx (Django Unchained, White House Down), Jada Pinkett Smith (Matrix Reloaded), Mark Ruffalo (The Avengers)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Thriller, Polar
	Conditions of visioning: 17.10.2017, VOD, 10" tablet screen
Synopsis: After a ride back from the Airport, cab driver Max (Foxx) takes as customer a man  (Cruise) offering to buy his services for the whole night. He is planning on going to five locations but after the first one the cab driver discovers what his client is really into.
Review: Directed by a Master of suspenseful Polars Michael Mann, Collateral was one of the very first movies to rely heavily on the use of a digital Cinema Camera, all the more challenging for a movie shot exclusively at night, as the light sensitivity of digital cameras was not very good at the time of shooting back in 2003. When I first watched the movie on a home cinema in a dark room the noise of the camera was quite obvious and even disturbing in some scenes, but this time in the compressed VOD format and a much smaller screen I didn't notice it. Beyond this technical particularity, the movie is noticeable for its original story and the bond unavoidably created between the two main characters, than must be played by excellent actors as we follow them closely (unity of action) during the whole night (unity of time) throughout the city of LA (unity of place). Simple classic rules of written Drama well adapted to Cinema and that help the audience staying glued to the action. Tom Cruise's character is not a good person, but as in most of the roles for the mega-star, he is perfect in what he does. The contrast with the simple taxi driver (Foxx) is also a great pleasure to watch. Long rich dialogs also let us time to appreciate the supporting roles of Jada Pinkett Smith after she was in The Matrix and Mark Ruffalo before he was The Hulk. Action, Thriller, Polar, a bit of Romance, jazz, car chases, investigation... Collateral has it all. Quite recommended.
Rating: 7 /10

Airport '77 (1977)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 1977
	Director: Jerry Jameson
	Actors: Jack Lemmon, Lee Grant, Joseph Cotten (Citizen Kane), James Stewart (Rear Window, Vertigo), Christopher Lee (The Wicker Man, The Lord of the Rings 1-3)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Action, Thriller
	Conditions of visioning: 24.10.2017, VOD, 32" TV screen
Synopsis: A rich businessman and Art collector organizes a plane trip for some friends and to carry at the same time many Art pieces to his museum. The trip takes place in a luxurious plane, that will be high-jacked by the co-pilot and a waiter. Their plan turns bad when they hit an oil platform while all passengers are drugged asleep.
Review: When I was younger I was a big fan of the classic American disaster movies from the 70's: The Towering Inferno, Earthquake, other Ants and Spiders invasion movies, and the series of Airport movies (released in 70, 75, 77 and finally one with the Concorde in 79). Those are also known for being heavily parodied in the Jim Abrahams, David & Jerry Zucker Airplane! series of which I knew the dialogs by heart at some point. And I am still a sucker for disaster movies produced during the resurgence of the genre in the latest years, alien invasion or not (2012, Knowing, San Andreas...). Anyway, I mostly remember the first Airport (with a terrorist on-board) and the second one in which a passenger has to drive the plane after an accident and the injury of the pilots. I remember that I was very young and felt a lot of tension when watching them, being very concerned by the fate of the planes and their passengers! And I loved the character of Joe Patroni (a kind of super-engineer that know the planes design inside-out) played by George Kennedy in the four movies of the franchise, although with a very limited role in that one. I remember more vaguely Airport '77, mostly thanks to the scene with the balloons used to pull the plane out of the water. Yes, the plane does hit an oil platform, crashes in the ocean, sinks and the passengers survive until rescue comes. And nowhere else than in the Bermuda Triangle! If you find that a bit over-the-top, you are not wrong. Like in most movies of that period I liked the slow beginning and the introduction of the characters played by classic (read aging) actors (what is Christopher Lee doing here??). But it all goes wrong at the moment of the accident: poor special effects, no logic in the shots between inside/outside the plane, unbelievable actors, objects flying in the cabin obviously thrown with precision by a film crew member... It is hard to keep watching seriously. From then on the movie is just an alternation of scenes of madness, wounds, tears, hope... inside the plane, with on the outside what looks like an expensive and very-well shot advertisement for the US Navy Rescue Forces (heavily acknowledges at the end). Not the best in the disaster movie sub-genre.
Rating: 3 /10

The General's Daughter (1999)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 1999
	Director: Simon West (Con Air, The Expendables 2)
	Actors: John Travolta (Saturday Night Fever, Face/Off, Pulp Fiction), Madeleine Stowe (12 Monkeys), James Cromwell (Babe, I Robot), James Woods (Contact, Vampires)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Thriller
	Conditions of visioning: 16.10.2017, VOD, 40" TV screen
Synopsis: When the daughter of a well-known and well-respected base commander (Cromwell) is murdered, an army detective (Travolta) is summoned to look into the matter, and will uncover a much more complex case than he thought at first.
Review: I didn't remember it at first but soon I realized I had in fact seen that movie. I would say it is quite typical from that period, just before 9/11, when the most recent action from the US military was the Gulf War in the early 90's. Terrorism hadn't hit American soil yet. There exist a few investigation Thrillers taking place in the special environment of the military (remember in particular A few good Men with Tom Cruise), in which the rules are different as clearly stated to the detective by the commander as they first meet. And throughout the movie you can feel the frustration played by Travolta as his character knows that everybody is hiding something, and has something to hide. The introduction scene of Travolta is a bit over-the-top but otherwise I found him good in the role, and I loved seeing James Cromwell and James Woods that I find both too rare those days (especially Woods). Madeleine Stowe plays a much-needed female figure in an otherwise ultra-male world, except for the victim, herself a special case because of her father and her background and character (I won't say more). Travolta is definitely at the top of his game, facing new clues and obstacles as they are brought to him by a story that never gets boring. A good memory from year 1999.
Rating: 6 /10

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2017
	Director: John Watts (Cop Car)
	Actors: Tom Holland (Locke), Michael Keaton (Birdman, Batman), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man 1-3)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Action
	Conditions of visioning: 20.10.2017, VOD, 32" TV screen
Synopsis: After his first experience of teaming up with the Avengers (in Captain America: Civil War), Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man (Holland) can't wait for a new assignment. As it doesn't come he starts to fight small crimes and stumbles upon a dealer of Alien weaponry.
Review: An intriguing choice from Marvel to have introduced this "new" character in its Cinematic Universe first in a Captain America movie, to give it his stand-alone adventure only after. Forget about the genesis of the super-hero (everyone knows he was bitten by a special spider), the excellent self-consistent Spider-Man trilogy by Sam Raimi and the useless more recent adventures of The Amazing Spider-Man, the only raison d'être of this Homecoming is that it is set in the same Universe as where evolve the others like Iron Man for example. Sadly I found that it is also its only interest. More than in any other movie of the Franchise, the connections are not only hinted but spelled out in big letters: views of New York and the Stark Tower, Stark's bodyguard Happy and Tony Stark himself (Downey Jr.) showing up a few times. Because contrarily to the "classic" Spider-Man story, in this one Peter Parker has a mentor in the person of Tony Stark and that drives its character a lot. Exit the poignant death of Parker's uncle and his touching old aunt in Raimi's trilogy, here it is all about Action and stunts and Parker cracking jokes and over-explaining everything while in the suit given to him by his mentor. And where does this young sexy aunt come from?!? And the villain might be cool-looking and his motive fitting in the Marvel Universe, I am not sure Michael Keaton was the right cast. I am pretty sure that as soon as he wears his suit, he becomes all CGI, and the same probably goes for Spider-Man. If Marvel is customizing its different movies to different audience groups, Spider-Man : Homecoming is definitely aimed at kids, and to me one of the most useless additions to the multi-billion dollars saga.
Rating: 4 /10

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2004
	Director: Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia)
	Actors: Denzel Washington (Man on Fire, Flight), Liev Schreiber (Scream 1-3, X-Men Origins: Wolverine), Meryl Streep (The Deer Hunter)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Thriller
	Conditions of visioning: 13.10.2017, VOD, 40" TV screen
Synopsis: Back from the Gulf War, members of the same battalion that was made prisoner follow different paths: one to politics (Schreiber), another troubled with dreams (Washington), another one downright crazy, and many die in accidents. But they all have in common the exact same description of their capture, recited by heart to the letter.
Review: This is an interesting mix between a post-war movie (including PTSD and brainwashing, now at the heart of the Homeland TV-series), one with politics and intrigue around the White House, conspiracy theory, big corporations, and investigation. It reminded me a little of the 1990 Jacob's Ladder, and I have just discovered that it is a remake (probably adapted to the taste of the new century) of a 1962 movie with the same title and starring Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh. Denzel Washington is a good as usual, and I loved the too rare Liev Schreiber that I still have in mind for his role in the Scream franchise. I am not used to watch Meryl Streep acting, but I have to admit she does have a special vibe and plays very well the ambitious mother. All the elements fall in place to keep you hooked to the story until the last moments, including the right amount of twists. All of that shot impeccably (I liked the transitions when the brainwashing is kicking in) by director Jonathan Demme who delivered, if not a classic as The Silence of the Lambs or Philadelphia, a gripping political Thriller nonetheless.
Rating: 6 /10

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2008
	Director: Kevin Smith (Clerks 1-2, Tusk)
	Actors: Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, The Green Hornet, Paul), Elizabeth Banks (Man on a Ledge), Craig Robinson, Justin Long (Jeepers Crepeers, Tusk), Jeff Anderson (Clerks 1-2)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Comedy, Romance
	Conditions of visioning: 11.10.2017, VOD, 40" TV screen
Synopsis: Friends since High School and now roommates, Zack & Miri (Rogen & Banks) go beyond shame and self-respect and decide to produce a porno movie in order to pay their bills.
Review: This is what a Romantic Comedy looks like when you let Kevin Smith shoot it. That is crossing boundaries that Judd Apatow didn't approach in movies like Knocked Up for example (starring the same Seth Rogen by the way). Smith's dialogs are as crude and crispy as in his first movie Clerks or his most recent Yoga Hosers. And thanks to him, the untold love between Zack and Miri is not revealed by a well-chosen event that would trigger gags (like in the other romantic comedy Man Up to quote one of the few I know), but by the full-blown production of a movie for adults, from inspiration to finding a title (Oh the SF references!), casting and gathering a crew (with Anderson and Mewes from Clerks and any other movie with Jay and Silent Bob), location scouting, costumes and story, until the unabashed shooting scenes reminding of the Donkey one in Clerks 2. Unavoidably the Romance kicks in at some point (Smith manages to do that, just to show that he also can follow the rules of classic Cinema genres), via realistic reactions from the couple. On the other hand the movie seems a bit unrealistic on the ambition of the director: how does he plan on linking the various sex scenes ?!? Unfortunately the movie ended up a critic and public failure. I learnt some anecdotes about it when watching Smith's one man show Too Fat for 40, like the fact that it is not easy to market a movie with "Porno" in the title, a realization that made him change the title of his following movie from A Couple of Dicks (= nickname for Cops in that context) to Cop Out.
Rating: 6 /10

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2011
	Director: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor (Gamer)
	Actors: Nicolas Cage (Face/Off, Knowing), Ciarán Hinds (John Carter, Game of Thrones TV-series), Idris Elba (Thor)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Action
	Conditions of visioning: 07.10.2017, VOD, 40" TV screen.
Synopsis: As Johnny Blaze (Cage) hides out in Eastern Europe, he is called upon to stop the devil (Hinds), who is trying to take human form.
Review: I didn't get the chance to see the first Ghost Rider from 2007 in which Nicolas Cage was already playing the cursed biker, but I read bad things about both movies, especially this sequel shot "for cheap" in Eastern Europe. Well I found this movie not so bad, in particular thanks to a dedicated look and spirit, and decent special effect (at least on a TV screen). The music is rock-n-roll, the shooting and editing nervous, like the acting by the main characters Cage and Elba. I found Cage to well play the tortured soul when human, and the semi-crazy fallen God when not. The flaming skull and motorbike look cool, but not as much as the mining machine mounted by the rider at some point! A pretty awesome scene. Some animated scenes summarize the birth of the character (from the first movie I guess), which is also well in the spirit. All in all rather entertaining. Note that although adapted from Marvel Comics, those two movies don't belong to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Iron Man, The Avengers...) but the character of Ghost Rider is central to the fourth season of the TV show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Rating: 5 /10

The sea that thinks (2000)

	Also Known As: De zee di denkt
	Year of first release: 2000
	Director: Gert de Graaff
	Actors: Bart Clever
	Country: NL
	Genre: Documentary, SF
	Conditions of visioning: 17.10.2017, Schwankhalle, Dutch with German subtitle
Synopsis: This is a surprising film about its self. It focuses on Bart (Clever), a scriptwriter who is writing the script for this film. In the film, Bart himself plays the scriptwriter writing the script of The Sea That Thinks. He types what he does and does what he types. H is looking for the answer to the urgent question that make him forget wife and child: Who are you? He uses stunning examples to show us that our world is only to be found in our consciousness. What is real and what is illusion? Do we believe in our dream world while we dream? Do we believe in the reality of film while we see it? And why? His combination of pictures and text has a hypnotic effect on the viewer.
Review: The first part of this experimental movie, we are questioned about ourselves and about to be. Then it turns to a brain storming on the definition of "I" whether we are real, we are a story, we are an illusion written by ourselves or by anybody else. The ever-longer scenes with the wife who we never see are first anecdotal and then hilarious for the multiple cross-purposes. I loved these questioning and several of the image compositions.  To be in trend, Gert de Graaff put a lot of cat porn at a date when it did not exist yet! And a large part of the movie is just showing objects or post-its with a voice on it. This might be good for a while, but the massive use makes it a bit hard to digest. The massive use of optical illusion effects is excellent especially when in a burst of madness Bart destroys it. The image composition is great, to enhance rather effects and the text than to emotions like in Chinese cinema. The text remains the major attraction and originality of the movie. The effect is between meditative and hilarious. Good idea! If you want to think one day about life and that you are patient, this movie is for you!
Rating: 5 /10