lamps

Twists and turns like in Czech politics, a mangled penis and Rachel Leigh Cook's bouncing breasts. No one paid much attention to the logic, but the above, together with the endearing naivety with which this sort of story is put together, doesn't allow me to go below an average 3*. The sex scene in the graveyard is awesome.

Fantastic production design and performances in a boilerplate story where all the star cameos serve the sole purpose of making the viewer understand that racism is just evil and that even the people in question loudly disagree with it. The only load-bearing characters thus become the suffering Ejiofor and the awful master Fassbender, whose attempt at a more hearty psychology is obvious but sadly unsuccessful, holding the emotional raft on mere innate empathetic values – had he broken out of the "just plain evil" box and played a more original game with the downtrodden, the impact would have been many times stronger. Still, it's undoubtedly a polished piece of filmmaking that reflects the ugly spirit of a racist time very faithfully and authentically – but we certainly expected more from McQueen.

Brilliant! Terry Gilliam is known for his original and specific work, and with 12 Monkeys he brings it to absolute perfection. It's not every day that a film is so imaginatively and brilliantly directed from start to finish, and that the imagery and, above all, the plot are so varied and sophisticated that you can't help but pop the DVD back into the player and immerse yourself in the cinematic poetry with even greater intensity. It’s is not a groundbreaking work like Kubrick's Odyssey and its nowadays routine visuals won’t lift viewers from their seats, but thanks to its literally timeless story, the great performances and the endless imagination of one film crew, it’s definitely one of the gems of world filmography.

A very suggestive and unpleasant film, which probably cannot be faulted too much within the director's vision. There were moments when I was bored, and overall, 127 Hours didn't blow me away, but at least for the final act, for James Franco and for the very original and bold execution I can't go below 4*...

Michael Bay is a commercial filmmaker with a great grasp of basic genre scales and practices, but he cannot naturalise all the events, including the action sequences, and give them a fatal, physically painful feel. 13 Hours is a prototype of a good action flick, but it desperately lacks any innovative impulse that would elevate it to the category of excellent – the protagonist is presented using the most profane clichés and his only motivation is traditionally to return to his wife and small daughters, while the other players in the story are nothing but passer-bys, hard to tell from one another thanks to identical physical parameters in the action turmoil. The basic plot is plumped up by the annoying figure of the irrational boss, who only acts expediently to further escalate the situation, and finally the action itself doesn't make you completely surrender to it and forget everything else. We can praise the fast pace, thanks to which the runtime doesn't feel excessive, and the opening documentary passage and the related depiction of Benghazi as a real hell on earth, where killing is the order of the day. It's a more sincere and effective film than the disparate Pearl Harbor, but still too contrived and lacking in intensity, a stale looser compared to Black Hawk Down. 60%

A slightly above average whodunit that badly wants to be psychologically sophisticated, but in the end, with all its drastic twists and turns, is as unbelievable as an angry Andrew Garfield. The actors are very good and convincing, the pace is pleasant, and the twists and turns themselves are surprising, but delivered rather poorly and blandly, which is mainly related to the emotional detachment of Marvans inspector Čadek, who serves as an informational intermediary between the fable and the storyline. The potential was certainly higher.

A bit of a naive ghost story, the kind of which there have been many. And even though John Cusack is playing for dear life and all that fear is palpable, my adrenaline level didn't rise an inch during his growing madness. Besides, the filmmakers didn't know where to go and resorted to more and more obvious twists and turns, almost crossing the boundary of kitsch several times. On the other hand, they came up with a very interesting ending, which was certainly not very shocking, but it surprised me. A decent 3* for the effort, the actors and the decent atmosphere.

I don't understand why I let this film slip through my fingers for so long. It’s an amazing experience, the likes of which you just don't see. Ridley is an incredibly complex and perfectionist filmmaker able to caress you with literally every shot and can present even a seemingly boring and verbose passage in a spectacular and captivating way. Here he is greatly assisted by the great Depardieu, who was perfect for the role of Columbus, and also by Vangelis at the peak of his career, who spits out one beautiful musical motif after another. The slow pace suits Ridley and he knows how to work with it perfectly, the beautiful setting and the production design are pleasing to the eye of every viewer, and the big theme of the clash of ideas with a completely different world adds to the monumentality and epicness of the film as a whole. Two and a half hours is a pretty brutal runtime, but I enjoyed it as much as any other director (and composer) could have with this story. 85%

A magnificent way of fooling the viewer, but I didn’t buy it. All that demanding work that can be seen on the authenticity of the sets and the hundreds of extras, whose movements Mendes had to plan in detail, and certainly deserves praise. But an educational rebuke is also warranted, because, apart from the visuals, watching the endless movement of the camera leaves the impression that the director only stood behind the camera, praising his own vision, without considering whether all that exhibition makes any sense and has a solid justification. The opening long shot has a purely following character, this means that the movement of the camera is activated and subject to the movement of the characters; it never moves away from them, breathing over their shoulders, or at most goes around them a couple of times, letting them go over an obstacle from the other side in order to allow for an invisible cut. Such a staging demands a lot of work and supports the subjective experience of the horrors of war, but after a few minutes I started asking myself “is that all?”. Deakins’s work is impressive, with spectacular angles and camera positions that are in perfect harmony with the intense lightning, always giving the impression that the camera is actually directing the film, but in this case he was very likely replaced most of the time by a younger assistant running before or behind the characters, and the movements in front of the camera become tiring and unimaginative after a while, sometimes to the point that, rather than obediently following the action, it’s more fun to find where they may have cut; a process that they quite managed to hide at the level of noticing the editing, but that it’s unfortunately reflected on the movements of the characters and the camera, with obstacles and human protagonists appearing with a mandatory regularity that is often not justified by the development of the plot. And in fact, another one of the questionably resolved elements is the logical unfolding on the plot and its relation to space-time. The continuous shot and the purely subjective character of the narration make it impossible to move away from some unimportant segments, which is of course intentional, the messengers are pressed for time and every second counts, but it ends up affecting the internal organisation and the logic of that world. For example, when the protagonists receive their important mission, they are told that the place where they have to deliver the message is at least six hours away by foot, how is it possible then that one of them manages to crawl, stumble and run there within the runtime of the film (plus one visible cut when the protagonist passes out and wakes up after a certain time)? And personally I didn’t understand why in the second half the narration makes unnecessary stops (must every war movie have a scene with an innocent terrified civilian and a small child?) and why the protagonist makes certain stupid decisions that puts him in unnecessary danger (the scene with the drunk German). But I don’t want to only criticise the concept, there are certain dramatic moments that work very well and strike the viewer in the head, and the sequence in the burning town is amazing, exactly in the style of the Deakins and Mendes at their best in the ending of Skyfall. Once again, however, it is self-evident to argue that a deliberate blend of naturalistic scenes that aim to draw the attention in a minimalistic way with epic and ballad-like ones like from Tarkovsky is pretty much out of the question – if they’ve already went for no cuts for the sake of greater authenticity, why didn’t the go without music, too? (The music is beautiful, but it pulls the viewer out of the desired trance.) Despite the media hype and its crazy desire to be ground-breaking, this film is only artificially impressive and a tedious running around in circles, rather than an effectively constructed drama with a concept that could defend and justify a weak story with a predictable outcome. On the one hand, I realised that tension can be pinned even without cuts, but the realisation that prevails is that endlessly following two characters, even under the best production and technical conditions, will make attention waver after some time and that cuts are actually necessary in order to maintain the coherence of a fictional world and the logic of the narration, unless the filmmaker has an enormous visionary scope, which is something 1917 doesn’t have, even though many people will blindly say so. 55%

Carpenter’s precise B-movie hit demands that you not think about the wider context of the story and instead adapt to the requirements of low-brow entertainment, but the director will pay you back with interest. Kurt Russell is great and is accompanied by a host of top-acting talent and, despite the occasional silliness, this is pure filmmaking that, even within its premise, can be taken pretty seriously. The uncontrolled “trash” fun will come with the sequel. 75%