thorndamien
Aug. 2005 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen3
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Bewertungen3310
Bewertung von thorndamien
Rezensionen8
Bewertung von thorndamien
Mastema is a slow-burning, deeply atmospheric French psychological thriller that skillfully blends science and the supernatural. From the opening scenes, the film creates a heavy, unsettling ambiance-cold landscapes, haunting silences, and minimalistic visuals that linger in the mind. The direction and cinematography are excellent, creating a creeping tension that never fully lets go.
What makes Mastema stand out is how it begins grounded in rationality-psychology, trauma, and grief-then subtly shifts into something more mystical and disturbing. The transition from science to the supernatural is done with elegance and intelligence, never feeling forced or cheap.
Another thing I deeply appreciated is how the film integrates sexuality into the narrative. It's done in a very French, very human way-honest, raw, and without the moral censorship often found in American cinema. In Mastema, sexuality isn't just a side note or a gimmick; it's an integral part of the characters' psychology, their trauma, and ultimately, the story's unraveling. It reminds us that desire, fear, loss, and madness are often tightly intertwined.
This film may not be for everyone-it's slow, strange, and more about atmosphere and emotion than traditional plot. But for those willing to immerse themselves, Mastema offers a uniquely unsettling journey. I gave it 8/10 for its originality, visual power, and courage to explore themes that are often sanitized or ignored.
What makes Mastema stand out is how it begins grounded in rationality-psychology, trauma, and grief-then subtly shifts into something more mystical and disturbing. The transition from science to the supernatural is done with elegance and intelligence, never feeling forced or cheap.
Another thing I deeply appreciated is how the film integrates sexuality into the narrative. It's done in a very French, very human way-honest, raw, and without the moral censorship often found in American cinema. In Mastema, sexuality isn't just a side note or a gimmick; it's an integral part of the characters' psychology, their trauma, and ultimately, the story's unraveling. It reminds us that desire, fear, loss, and madness are often tightly intertwined.
This film may not be for everyone-it's slow, strange, and more about atmosphere and emotion than traditional plot. But for those willing to immerse themselves, Mastema offers a uniquely unsettling journey. I gave it 8/10 for its originality, visual power, and courage to explore themes that are often sanitized or ignored.
I just finished watching Looper for the second time, and I'm honestly surprised at how much more it resonated with me on this revisit. The first time around, I thought it was a stylish, well-made sci-fi thriller with a cool concept. But this time, I saw something deeper, more layered - and frankly, more intelligent than I gave it credit for initially.
What really hit me is the brilliant character symmetry at the core of the story. The younger Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is fighting in the present to protect a future he believes is still ahead of him, while the older Joe (Bruce Willis) is fighting from the future, desperately trying to rewrite the past - to preserve what he once had. It's an inversion that plays out like a philosophical duel across time. One wants to maintain the path; the other wants to shatter it. That dynamic adds emotional and moral weight to what could've easily been a standard time-travel action flick.
This time around, I noticed how cleverly the film balances personal choice against inevitability. There's a fatalistic tension running through the entire movie - both Joes are trying to change the future, but in opposite directions, and both are convinced they're right. Neither one is painted as the villain, which is refreshing. Instead, Rian Johnson leans into ambiguity. The film doesn't spoon-feed the viewer a moral stance, and that ambiguity is exactly what makes it stick with you.
The world-building is also more subtle and effective than I remembered. Johnson doesn't waste time with exposition dumps - he lets the audience pick things up through context. The future is rough, gritty, and believable. There's a worn-out realism to it - from the collapsing economy to the casual violence to the junky tech - that makes the sci-fi elements feel grounded. It's not about shiny gadgets or flashy effects. It's about people navigating broken systems, making desperate choices.
On a technical level, the film holds up incredibly well. The prosthetic work on Gordon-Levitt to make him resemble a young Bruce Willis is still slightly uncanny, but it's effective enough to sell the illusion, and his performance does the heavy lifting. He adopts Willis's mannerisms without turning it into a caricature - the squint, the jaw tension, the cadence - it's all there. Willis, meanwhile, gives one of his more emotionally charged performances in years. His scenes with his future wife, brief as they are, make his motivation believable, even when it becomes morally questionable.
Emily Blunt's character adds yet another dimension to the story. Her arc represents a possible redemptive future - not just for Joe, but for the world itself. And her son, Cid, is the wildcard in all of it. The film toys with the idea of destiny - is this child doomed to become the Rainmaker, or can one meaningful act break the cycle of violence? It's a subtle but powerful theme: the idea that sacrifice, empathy, and self-awareness can undo what brute force never could.
And then there's that ending. It landed even harder this time. It's not just a twist for the sake of shock - it's the only logically consistent and emotionally honest resolution to the conflict. Young Joe realizes the paradox he's become, and makes the only choice that can end the loop. It's rare to see a time-travel film that doesn't collapse under its own logic by the third act. Looper walks that tightrope with surprising grace.
In short, Looper is more than just a slick sci-fi flick - it's a meditation on fate, identity, and the cost of change. The deeper themes aren't immediately obvious, but they're there for those willing to look past the action. Watching it a second time revealed a film that's smarter, tighter, and more emotionally resonant than I initially gave it credit for.
If, like me, you saw it once and thought, "Yeah, that was cool," do yourself a favor and revisit it. You might find, as I did, that Looper is far cleverer - and far more profound - than you remembered.
What really hit me is the brilliant character symmetry at the core of the story. The younger Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is fighting in the present to protect a future he believes is still ahead of him, while the older Joe (Bruce Willis) is fighting from the future, desperately trying to rewrite the past - to preserve what he once had. It's an inversion that plays out like a philosophical duel across time. One wants to maintain the path; the other wants to shatter it. That dynamic adds emotional and moral weight to what could've easily been a standard time-travel action flick.
This time around, I noticed how cleverly the film balances personal choice against inevitability. There's a fatalistic tension running through the entire movie - both Joes are trying to change the future, but in opposite directions, and both are convinced they're right. Neither one is painted as the villain, which is refreshing. Instead, Rian Johnson leans into ambiguity. The film doesn't spoon-feed the viewer a moral stance, and that ambiguity is exactly what makes it stick with you.
The world-building is also more subtle and effective than I remembered. Johnson doesn't waste time with exposition dumps - he lets the audience pick things up through context. The future is rough, gritty, and believable. There's a worn-out realism to it - from the collapsing economy to the casual violence to the junky tech - that makes the sci-fi elements feel grounded. It's not about shiny gadgets or flashy effects. It's about people navigating broken systems, making desperate choices.
On a technical level, the film holds up incredibly well. The prosthetic work on Gordon-Levitt to make him resemble a young Bruce Willis is still slightly uncanny, but it's effective enough to sell the illusion, and his performance does the heavy lifting. He adopts Willis's mannerisms without turning it into a caricature - the squint, the jaw tension, the cadence - it's all there. Willis, meanwhile, gives one of his more emotionally charged performances in years. His scenes with his future wife, brief as they are, make his motivation believable, even when it becomes morally questionable.
Emily Blunt's character adds yet another dimension to the story. Her arc represents a possible redemptive future - not just for Joe, but for the world itself. And her son, Cid, is the wildcard in all of it. The film toys with the idea of destiny - is this child doomed to become the Rainmaker, or can one meaningful act break the cycle of violence? It's a subtle but powerful theme: the idea that sacrifice, empathy, and self-awareness can undo what brute force never could.
And then there's that ending. It landed even harder this time. It's not just a twist for the sake of shock - it's the only logically consistent and emotionally honest resolution to the conflict. Young Joe realizes the paradox he's become, and makes the only choice that can end the loop. It's rare to see a time-travel film that doesn't collapse under its own logic by the third act. Looper walks that tightrope with surprising grace.
In short, Looper is more than just a slick sci-fi flick - it's a meditation on fate, identity, and the cost of change. The deeper themes aren't immediately obvious, but they're there for those willing to look past the action. Watching it a second time revealed a film that's smarter, tighter, and more emotionally resonant than I initially gave it credit for.
If, like me, you saw it once and thought, "Yeah, that was cool," do yourself a favor and revisit it. You might find, as I did, that Looper is far cleverer - and far more profound - than you remembered.
Sequels are rarely good. They often redo the same things, over and over and only changes a few things.
I liked the first "new" one, found the second Halloween Kills was "very sequelly ". This third one, it was Awsome. People complained that they didn't get the same old stuff. If you wanted the same old stuff. Go watch the first one or the "new" first one. You ll be happy.
With this one. Expect an evolution, a good one and you won't be disappointed.
The acting was good. I like the character in it. They were human. The story is good. Right from the start, they got me.
I grew up with Michael. Halloween was , for a while, my favourite movie . So for me, it is a great Halloween Ends.
I liked the first "new" one, found the second Halloween Kills was "very sequelly ". This third one, it was Awsome. People complained that they didn't get the same old stuff. If you wanted the same old stuff. Go watch the first one or the "new" first one. You ll be happy.
With this one. Expect an evolution, a good one and you won't be disappointed.
The acting was good. I like the character in it. They were human. The story is good. Right from the start, they got me.
I grew up with Michael. Halloween was , for a while, my favourite movie . So for me, it is a great Halloween Ends.
Kürzlich durchgeführte Umfragen
61 Gesamtzahl der durchgeführten Umfragen