Stanislaus

Within the films starring Audrey Hepburn, Funny Face is a slightly above-average piece of filmmaking that stands out, thanks in particular to the acting, dancing and singing of the main trio - Hepburn, Fred Astaire and Kay Thompson. Story-wise, this is a simple film, without any depth, but it is so sweetly delivered and acted that it can easily be forgiven and put behind it. There is no shortage of romance, which is enhanced by the Paris setting, and plenty of music and humour, most of which is provided by Astaire (and Thompson). Audrey Hepburn is once again wonderful, endearing and exceedingly chatty (as is her Liza Doolittle). All in all, a likeable and colourful film with a great cast and an enjoyable musical score.

Sleepaway Camp is a horror B-movie like no other. Stupid dialogue, a seemingly good twist that gets lost in the shallow plot, as well as a bunch of wannabe convincing actors. Still, in the end, this film doesn't offend (and of course doesn't impress) and the murders are occasionally imaginative and brutal, but quite expected. I can definitely say that I would never want to find myself at such a camp. In short, an 80's chill-out movie where you can turn off your brain and not think about what's going on.

My third encounter with Pier Paolo Pasolini did not turn out great. The Decameron is a lot like Arabian Nights, which I liked a bit more. I think what bothered me the most were the performances of the actors (or rather "actors") who seemed like some kind of naturals with a mental disorder, otherwise I can't explain the silly grimaces and everything. The story, which is divided into several short stories, isn't bad, but it didn't make me laugh or seem serious, which is a problem in a comedy drama. In short, I don't think I'll ever come around to Pasolini - maybe I should try his films from the 60s, which are more highly regarded.

Shame is a very realistic, at times almost salacious, probe into the life of a man who is obsessed with sex, unashamed of it, but circumstances demand that he re-evaluate his current (and really empty) life. The performances are breathtaking, with both Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan tackling their roles with bravado and verve. While the story isn't exactly perfect (at least for me), it is often chilling, mainly because of the level of authenticity. I must also commend Harry Escott's seemingly bland but all the more depressing score. All in all, a film that, while it didn't blow me away or put me on my ass (as many have), is still worth a watch.

Flight is one of those movies that stands on a good premise and a riveting performance by the lead actor. The most important step in getting rid of any addiction is admitting that you have a problem. Without that, you can never start! The pilot Whip, played by Denzel Washington, might have something to say about that, as he is ironically considered both a hero who saved a hundred lives and a bad guy who broke the law. The contrast of good and evil, lying and self-awareness are the main themes of the film. The addition of another troubled person, Kelly Reilly, only further enhanced the fact and emphasis that is placed on addiction in its various forms. The airplane scenes were very impressive, as were the final preparations for the hearing and the very end. The small role for John Goodman was also very satisfying. All in all, an above average film with a compelling story and good actors that is a psychological probe into the problems of today's population. R

Joe Wright won me over with his phenomenal film adaptations of Pride & Prejudice and Atonement, so I was counting on Anna Karenina to be another film that would fully immerse me and transport me with its atmosphere to the time in which the story takes place. Unfortunately, I have to say that this time it didn't happen. The original approach to the film's space, which is largely set in a theatre, seems very imaginative at first glance, no question about it. But the great novel (story) that "Anna Karenina" undoubtedly is is very much harmed by the confinement between four "bare" walls, not to mention the way the sets and props look (the use of a model train, I don't know why, irritated me quite a bit). As for the cast, at times I felt that some of the actors didn't take their roles too seriously (maybe a connection to the theatre, who knows), which was a bit annoying. In short, this film was quite a disappointment for me, which is all the more so considering the director's previous efforts.

A Scary Movie that doesn't star Anna Faris and Regina Hall - rubbish!? In the end, it deserves that one star, mostly thanks to Simon Rex and the "child mutilation" (which worked great in the third one). All that's left of the original touch are the parodies of various films, but they weren't funny at all. The casting of Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen was another nail in the coffin. This sequel should not have been made at all, as it is a disgrace to its predecessors.

I haven't had the pleasure of Park Chan-wook's highly acclaimed "revenge trilogy" until now, so the Stoker were a big unknown for me in terms of directorial style and poetics. I have to admit that visually it was a very well done job, involving the use of tracking shots, close-ups, no shortage of colour work and production design - just quality. The acting trio in the lead roles - Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman and Matthew Goode - performed convincingly, with grace, and at times I wondered who was actually the biggest nutcase on the set. Yet, as much as I'm praising the film here now, it still didn't leave me with anything profound to remember or return to. In short, a film that is steeped in flashy visuals and acting performances at the expense of story (or so it seemed to me).