"Amsterdam" is a quite unusual but promising movie from Quebec. The film starts as a comedy flick. Three quite different childhood friends want to escape from their everyday lives. They tell their wives or girlfriends that they would go on a hunting trip in the forest but in fact, they take the plane to Amsterdam to have some fun together. They are drinking a lot and smoking a lot of weed as well. I'm not sure it's a good idea to show a car driver having a sip of vodka and adults and family fathers boozing around but it tells us a lot of contemporary French Canadian society. 

The most revealing scene comes when the three actors go to the red light district. One characters passionately sleeps with a prostitute and can't get enough, another one wants to have fun but doesn't manage to because he has to think about his wife and the last one only gives the prostitute some money to make his friends think he is cool enough to go with her but in fact he doesn't even think about betraying his wife. The three friends are spying each other and their final decisions reveal a lot of what will happen next.  

The only thing I might complain about is the stereotypical image of Amsterdam that gets underlined in this movie. I have been several times to Amsterdam and it's a beautiful and very cultivated city with a lot of great things to visit. The city is though only reduced to a place where people are boozing, taking drugs and sleeping with prostitutes. This view is quite naive and closed-minded; one could even say slightly racist. 

Anyway, from this moment on, the movie gets an unusual turn. It becomes a suspenseful drama with a quite dark atmosphere. One of the three friends learns that his girlfriend is pregnant but instead of being happy, he gets scared and decides not to come home with his friends. A big argument kicks off but the desperate man doesn't change his mind. He wants to stay in Amsterdam for a few more days and his two friends return to their families. 

Nobody has the guts to tell the truth. The two remaining friends are afraid they could lose everything they have and realize that they didn't really think of the consequences of their decisions before. They spin a web of lies and tell that their friend went out in the woods after an argument and didn't come back. Soon, the police and their families realize that the two men didn't tell the whole truth but due to a series of coincidences and stupid actions, nobody comes close to reveal the truth. 

Their friend doesn't come back after few days and even not after a few weeks when the autumn goes by and Christmas arrives. The tragic events have changed the lives of the two remaining friends and everybody in the small village for the worse. It takes quite some time before a certain kind of routine is established again. 

Then, their friend suddenly comes back home for Christmas. He secretly watches the people in the village and how his disappearance has changed a lot of things. He decides to not reveal that he is back until he decides to meet his girlfriend again. He reveals to her that he doesn't believe that he caused her pregnancy and is the father of her unborn child and both of them get into quite a big argument. 

The viewers don't get to know what happens next until the two remaining friends get a message from their friend to meet in a cabin in the woods. Soon, all three shout at each other and their friendship is about to break completely apart. I don't want to reveal you the movie's twist but you probably won't see it coming and the film ends on a quite dark and intriguing note that leaves the viewers with a lot of food for thought. 

The strongest point of the movie is its development from a comedy film over a thriller to an intense drama. Each part convinces due to a solid acting and captivating story line with a few surprises towards the end. This movie is almost to experimental to hit the cinemas but I'm glad it was released in the movie theatres of the province of Quebec. 

The weaker parts are the stereotypical image of Amsterdam, a few lengths in the middle part of the film and a few little plot holes or unexplained events concerning credit cards, lazy police investigation and the disappearance of another person towards the end. 

The positive aspects outnumber this movie's flaws and if the story is intriguing enough to you, there is no reason for you to not try your best to get your hands on a copy of this unusual and mostly intelligent movie. 

"Captain Philipps" is an American action-drama inspired by but not closely based on actual events. The real Captain Philipps acted a lot less heroic and more ignorant than in this movie adaption that simply tries to do what many recent Hollywood movies do. They portray the hard but honest everyday life of a seemingly normal American citizen who suddenly faces big challenges and becomes a national hero. In times of governmental shutdown, economical problems and a slowly progressing decline as the world's most important nation, people need a few new heroes to believe in American society again.

In this movie, you see how democratic institutions, dominant military forces and social cohesion defeat corruption, exploitation and selfishness in the worst among the developing countries. The film presents the United States of America and Somalia as complementary antitheses which feels a little bit like lazy propaganda.

While the main villain constantly expresses a positive opinion about the American dream and how he could have a better life in that country, I must though admit that the movie also shows us the dark sides of some typically American values as individualism and weapons happen to be completely useless to resolve this movie's issues. Diplomatic elements, earthiness and shrewdness are the key elements leading to a predictable happy ending instead of a loner's brute force.

Apart of its minimal propaganda tendencies and the predictable ending, I didn't like the character of Captain Philipps at all. I'm not sure if Tom Hanks wanted to portray an arrogant and unsympathetic old bourgeois but if this was the intention of the makers, his acting is simply perfect. If the intentions were to create a sympathetic main actor, he completely failed though. It's hard to tell but usually, this kind of movie tries to create an emotional connection between the main character and the viewers and this movie just doesn't manage to build this up. From the beginning on, I had no connection with the main character and didn't really care about his fate.

Another small but important element I didn't appreciate was the fact that the main villain's English was so good. It's more than just a surprise that a pirate living in a desperate country ridden by a bloody civil war for more than two decades is able to speak English so well. I'm not sure if a young man like this ever had the chance to go to school at all. That's why this little detail and the general profound interactions between Captain Philipps and Muse feel a little bit too fabulous to me.

The movie's strengths are elsewhere. First of all, this film is filled with incredible tension and especially the claustrophobic and uneasy last third feels very intense and real. The acting is only one part of the gripping formula. The great soundtrack, the efficient light effects and the out-thought camera positioning create this nervous feeling. 

The movie starts as a documentary in the first moments, slowly turns into an atmospheric thriller towards the middle, then it gets a refreshing action boost between the second and last third and it ends as an oppressive chamber piece. This mixture is very well balanced by the makers and the movie never gets boring in my opinion. Even though the content of the script is sometimes flawed, its general segment linearization is of the highest quality.

The film also has its dramatic and philosophic elements as the villains aren't just brutal criminals but four very young and sometimes naive men who have no choice but to go through this hell to stay alive and take care of their elders and own families. The acting of the four Somalian pirates is simply outstanding and especially the performance by Abdi Barkhad is absolutely authentic and intense. Sometimes, the movie doesn't feel acted at all as if the real persons were replaying the tragic events that really happened in a slightly transformed way. This is where the movie almost looks like a documentary of the most intense kind.

Despite its little flaws, this movie is truly intense and feels authentic. The first third has a few lengths but the last two thirds will keep you on the edge of your seat as almost no other movie this year. While the story itself and Tom Hank's acting aren't very good, the claustrophobic atmosphere and the incredible performances by the four young African actors are worth a few Academy Awards. I hope to see more from these four actors in the near future. 

"Lee Daniels' The Butler" is a detailed drama about the modern history of the Afro-American people from the dark years of slavery in the beginning of the twentieth century over the revolutions around historical characters like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X up to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America. Don't expect this movie to be a biopic because the story doesn't have much to do with the original White House butler. If you care about other major historical events than those in connection to the Afro-American history, you may also be disappointed. Events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War or the Watergate scandal that shook up the White House are only mentioned on site notes. You will see a lot of presidents coming and going but I felt that they were rather some sort of amusing high school theatre staffage than profound characters. Lyndon B. Johnson was simply ridiculously funny, Richard M. Nixon looked like an arrogant loser who only cared about himself and Ronald W. Reagan felt like the most conservative and closed-minded politician among the presidents shown in this movie. Some presidencies have also been skipped in the movie and I wasn't surprised to see that there is no scene with Jimmy Carter who happens to be one of the least impressive and most unpopular American Presidents. Republican purists might argue that this movie idealizes John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama instead of several Republican presidents and they do have a point here. But anyway, these characters are just frames for the main topic of the liberation of the Afro-American people.

What I liked about this movie was the gripping story of the butler with all its ups and downs. The movie starts with a few shocking scenes I will let you discover on your own. Later, the viewers see how the young and hungry thief that has no place to call his home becomes a talented and serious butler who even makes it to the White House. This movie shows the essence of the famous American Dream and that's where it has a slightly cheesy patriotic touch which might be quite normal and unspectacular for American viewers but which feels a little bit strange for international viewers.

In the second part of the movie, the perspective switches a little bit. The story of the butler itself isn't all that interesting anymore. You rather care about his alcoholic and frustrated wife and his two very different sons. One of them is in constant opposition to his father, doesn't really care about his studies and is in prison all the time because he fights for the laws of Afro-American people. The other one wants to go to Vietnam as a soldier. These natural everyday life stories carry the second part of the movie very well and serve as clear guiding lines throughout all the decades portrayed in this movie.

This concept works well because of a great sense for historical settings, the decent use of archive footage, the simple but efficient soundtrack and the balanced mixture of historical facts and credible fiction. One must also point out the excellent acting in this movie. Main actor Forest Whitaker delivers the best performance of his career. I was very positively surprised by the acting talent of Oprah Winfrey as well who incarnated the butler's wife. The rest of the movie is filled with more or less useful star cameos. We can see celebrities such as Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz but also gifted actors like Robin Williams and Alan Rickman in this movie. In this case, their appearances are entertaining enough and appropriated to the epic historical story line with many different characters and many cooks don't spoil the broth this time. I would also like to point out a younger actress which was Yaya Alafia who played a slightly evil human rights activist in this movie. Her acting was simple but very credible and she perfectly represented the evil beauty you would definitely fall for. I hope to see further serious movies with her that would head for the crime or horror genres.

In the end, I really enjoyed watching this movie for three precise reasons. First of all, I am very interested in American history in general. Second, I am intrigued by the history of Afro-American and black people and I honestly sympathize with this proud people even if I'm white. Third, the acting performances really made the difference here between a rather boring epic like "Argo" or "Lincoln" which I didn't like and a truly gripping drama with a humanist message like this. When I watched the movie at my local cinema, some people spontaneously stood up after the presentation and applauded. I wouldn't call this movie an excellent one but I wouldn't be surprised if this film won a few Academy Awards next year. You should watch this movie if you care for at least two out of the three reasons I've just mentioned. If you don't do so, this movie is not interesting for you and you should either go for a specific documentary about the topic or another and more fictional genre. 

"The Great Gatsby" is a movie that convinces with well done visual effects even though they weren't worth a 3D adaption at all. The soundtrack of the movie was also decent as well as costumes, light work and locations. Leonardo DiCaprio did another convincing job but he has also done far better before as well.

These are the only positive things I could tell you about this boring movie based on a horribly overrated novel. There are so many bad points that I honestly don't really know where to start. The story is extremely lame and predictable. The main love story never managed to touch me even though I'm a rather emotional and romantic person. Even the disgusting and evil characters didn't evoke any kind of emotion in me. The only moments where something finally happens in the movie are maybe the last thirty minutes and it's not all too breathtaking neither. The first two hours are almost event-less and there isn't any character development neither. The acting is superficial and simply forgettable. It has been a while since I have seen a movie with such a bad and exchangeable acting. Especially the narrator and main character didn't give me anything at all and remained absolutely faceless. The movie tried to criticize the mindless life of the roaring twenties but its attempt remained dull and vague.

In the end, I was close to leave my local movie theatre several times and the film was really hard to sit through after all. This drama has a lot of lengths, includes mostly faceless actors and focuses on an ordinary story line that could be told in three lines and that doesn't carry a movie with an overrated length of two hours and a half. The costumes and effects are okay but not worth your money for an expensive 3D screening.

In the end, as a fan of many movies centred around the roaring twenties and the depressive thirties in the United States of America (from "The Godfather" over "Once Upon A Time In America" up to "Gangster Squad") and also as a fan of Leonardon DiCaprio in many of his movies ("Titanic", "Inception", "Shutter Island") I was really disappointed by this flick. I wouldn't watch it again and would recommend you to avoid this content-less piece of glam and glitter at all costs. 

Before you get me wrong, let me set things straight. I have loads of respect for the historical character of Abraham Lincoln and his achievements. I studied human sciences for four years at university. I am interested in topics with economical, ethic, ethnic, philosophical, political, psychological and social issues. I have elaborated opinions on many topics but I am open to listen to opinions of others if they can explain and elaborate them in front of me no matter what their point of view might be. I think it's important to create movies about historical events and characters and I'm not talking about all those biased and rather similar war movies that have flooded our cinemas since 9/11. 

I was looking forward to watch this movie. I thought that it didn't get so many awards for nothing. I have much respect for Steven Spielberg. I adore Daniel Day-Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones. Everything seemed to be prepared for a great film but I got quickly disappointed.

But let's start with the positive things first. First of all, the costumes, decorations and settings are breathtaking. They really take you back in time. The artistic details are authentic, elaborated and rich. Any artist and historian will enjoy this aspect. 

The acting is also on the positive side. Daniel Day-Lewis' interpretation of the legendary president is authentic, intellectual and very stylish. Tommy Lee Jones who portrays Thaddeus Stevens is another highlight. There is a little surprise about this character in the end of the movie that put a smile on my face. 

Let's though talk about the negative aspects. The most important thing is the storytelling. I'm aware of the fact that this is not a biopic and that the movie only focuses on a little aspect of Abraham Lincoln's political career. But I feel that the viewers are thrown too quickly into the story. The movie features several scenes that touch the president's past and future or the issues of the Civil War. If you keep these scenes, you also have to give a few more details about them. I know American history well and was able to follow this movie but as a blockbuster for a bigger public, this film clearly lacks details and orientation. The film should have spent more time on the issues of the Civil War. The introduction and character development of the president as well as of his friends and foes should have been done in a smoother and more detailed way. The film ends with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln that is shot in the most boring way possible. If you include this detail, you should have shown the whole story of the murder, why it eventually took place and what happened shortly afterwards. If you really want to create a movie that is some sort of statement against slavery, you should have shown the evolution that the proud black people of the United States of America have gone through since the pioneer work of Abraham Lincoln instead of only showing the assassination of that ladder one. 

Sometimes, I feel that even the makers of the movie weren't sure what this movie should have been like. The simplistic title "Lincoln" clearly underlines this issue. The movie is a historical drama but of what kind? An extended biopic? Check. A social drama around the American Civil War? Check. A political statement? Check. By trying to be all of this at the same time, the movie feels confusing and pointless. 

The dialogues are sometimes very elaborated and intellectual but sometimes almost too simplistic. This quite strange contrast made this movie rather incoherent for me. In one scene, Abraham Lincoln has a philosophically intriguing discussion with his wife and at another moment, he has to hold a speech that is incredibly improvised, pointless and short. There are many of these two- faced moments and they really bothered me. 

Daniel Day-Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones do great jobs but the supporting actors were everything but important or impressive. I would have liked to learn more about the motivations and views of the political adversaries of Abraham Lincoln. Many intriguing historical characters of the Civil War are introduced like cameo appearances. Once again, the makers didn't seem to be sure what they wanted to do. If you want to do a movie about the Thirteenth Amendment only, then you should have excluded the details about the Civil War. But if you include them, please elaborate on the historical context and let the actors some space and time to show their talent.

Instead of doing so, the movie includes many useless dialogues. Some discussions and speeches are without a doubt intriguing but what you get here are almost one hundred fifty minutes of dialogues. This is definitely too much. The makers should have included some additional elements to lighten things up. This could have been a few battle scenes of the Civil War. It could have been a few flashbacks elaborating on the Abraham Lincoln's life. It could have been the difficult relation to his wife or family as well. It could have been the complicated relationship between Thaddeus Stevens and his wife. Many possibilities were there to create a more entertaining and at the same time profound movie. What we get are only dialogues of an unstable quality as in an old fashioned theatre play.

The weak points are much more prominent than the stronger parts. On the positive side, we have great costumes, locations and settings and two solid main actors. One the negative side, there are too many dull dialogues, more or less convincing supporting actors and many pointless scene choices. This movie is hard to sit through, even for those who are interested in the topic. I wouldn't watch it again. I can't understand all the awards and positive critics. I come to the conclusion that 2012 wasn't a good year for Hollywood cinema.