Lima

It is rare to see such dirty, unkempt action in an A-budget film, where in the heat of battle, opponents are beaten into a freshly stitched wound and eliminated 95% of the time in the surest way, i.e. by headshot, where cars don't explode upon impact and women fight like women (i.e. not through strength, but by subterfuge), so you don't see them punch and kick hard, which they wouldn't be able to do given their physiognomy, as the vast majority of films in Hollywood today do in terms of gender pseudo-balance. What's more, there's a humorous twist on action movie clichés – the assassins have their own hotel with its own rules, and the unquestionable reason for the carnage is a dead dog. I can understand that, if someone touched my hamster, even John Wick with his arsenal would be in trouble.

Poor Peter Jackson, if this film had come out 10 or 13 years ago, everyone would have been gushing over an unparalleled foray into the fantasy genre, but today's audiences are already spoiled by the cinematic attractions of recent years (and rightly so) and CGI effects, however sophisticated, can no longer impress anyone. But I can still feel that playful Peter in there, the 14 year-old kid who would get cyclops moving and trow a spear with photo-montage. I can still see the overgrown kid in who likes to show off, like in his movie beginnings. And I like that. Moreover, as with the Ring Trilogy, the visuals were handled by Tolkien's illustrators John Howe and Alan Lee, so I have nothing to complain about in that respect either. The Hobbit doesn't match the previous trilogy emotionally, but nobody could have expected that with the source material, which is an easygoing fairytale that doesn't solve anything, and I appreciate all the more that Jackson did manage to squeeze some of those fateful emotions into it. Still, unlike the previous two parts, I’m not giving it 5 stars. While the Hobbit's quest was entertaining and engaging thanks to the frequent changes of scenery and encounters with creatures of all sorts, here we basically don't move from where we are, there is more empty filler than necessary and you can also see how the narrative has been brutally chopped up. This policy of the studios (release a shorter cut in cinemas and a half-hour longer one on Blu-ray and make more money out of it) really annoys me. However, when I sum it up and count the pros and cons, I can safely say that although the Hobbit trilogy is not equal to the Ring trilogy in my eyes, it’s still a few thousand Smaug’s Tails ahead of the rest of the fantasy competition.

Sitting at the bar with a shorter haircut telling her story, Sarah Snook looks like a young DiCaprio in the 'pre-Titanic' era, and not only does she look it, she gives a similarly fantastic performance. The entire first hour, its narrative, offers one of the most interesting passages the film world has delivered in the last year. Unfortunately, though, when the cards are laid on the table, the only thing left to play with are the temporal paradoxes so beautifully parodied in the Back to the Future trilogy. It's a great shame because a lot of potential was wasted.

Not many films today can boast such precise, focused direction. Every look of the actors, every shot, has its place. This is a long way from the "red library", as some here write. Of course, some naysayers might find it there, especially in the final climax, but there's nothing to be done about that. Kate Winslet is fantastic Josh Brolin’s charisma is enormous.

An excellent series that unfortunately hasn’t reached a wider audience in our country. It's exactly as one foreign review says: "easy to admire, but hard to love." To admire because of the flawless craftsmanship, the detailed period setting (the 1980s) and the precise actors, from the smallest supporting roles to the leading ones. And it's hard to love because the leading duo are like fellow TV serial killer Dexter, who, as with the two protagonists playing Soviet KGB spies, we know that what they are doing is not exactly kosher (and sometimes beyond what we would expect from our favourite lead characters), but we still root for them in a way. We form an ambivalent relationship with them – on the one hand, as dedicated KGB spies, they irritate us because they undermine the foundations of a society that has opened its arms to them; on the other hand, we like them because they are not brainwashed, they have a point of view and they are likeable (Kerri Russell and Matthew Rhys are my new acting revelations). The casting overall is the trump card of the series. I especially enjoy the well-known secondary role actor Noah Emmerich as a CIA agent who exudes respect, some of his monologues give me chills, and the unknown Alison Wright as the manipulative, naive Martha is also excellent. The script is entirely unpredictable, winding its way forward in unexpected paths, so nothing for lobotomized viewers who are addicted to the standard mindless TV entertainment that you can watch while doing the ironing. Perhaps I would have liked a sharper climax in the last part of the 1st season, given what it had promised all along, and also the pilot doesn't lure enough and someone might be forced into the second episode. But give it a chance, really. Anyway, I’m looking forward to the second season, which is supposed to be even better.

Poster tagline: EARTH GIVEN 24 HOURS TO SURRENDER!! AN UNEARTHLY ENEMY DEFYING SCIENCE!!! IN A WAR TO-THE-DEATH OF ALL CIVILIZATION!!!!!! The world of cinema is unfair. Films like Robot Monster or the works of Ed Wood are notoriously known by all fans, but this gem that is equal to them in terms unintended comedy has been forgotten. If I were in the management of the Shockproof Film Festival, I’d go for it immediately. It’s impossible not to love. A film where piles of raked dirt attack (i.e., traces of invisible enemies, recycled many times from the same shot but from a different angle), zombies are destroyed by high-frequency sound, invisible alien ghosts get caught in a layer of acrylic paint on the body of their victims (so they can't escape through sweat pores), a bunch of edited disasters, demolitions, and footage from WW2 documentaries and other sources, etc. etc. Add to that the amateur actors (the only one who meets the criteria for normal acting is the great John Agar) and the pathetic voice of the narrator, all that wrapped in cheap visuals and the setting of the famous Bronson Canyon, in California, where the aforementioned, legendary Robot Monster was shot. And I wouldn't be surprised if the film's central situation - a group of people locked in a bunker surrounded by a horde of zombies - wasn't the inspiration for Romero and his Night of the Living Dead. I had a great time with the ubiquitous nonsense, which definitely wasn’t the intention of the creators, and I have no problem over-rating this time :o)

Sly's scripted assurance that old geezers are still better than young inexperienced kids is actually enough to make me happy. I could have done without the gender emancipation element in the form of an invincible warrior in a skirt (the director should have explained to her that a perpetually scowling face would not make her a tough brawler), but on the other hand, Banderas was pleasantly delightful in his self-deprecating role delivered like a ferret on speed. The fact that the young ones lack any charisma at all is actually good, it makes the personality of the old action stars stand out all the more. And the final action-packed 20-minute set-piece finally brought it up to a very close 4*. I have to laugh at some of the criticisms here (as well as like-minded reviews on news sites) to the effect that the Expendables 3 "is all about shooting". What else did you expect from a pure action franchise scripted by a man named Sylvester Stallone? A Kantian reflection on the meaning of existence and the universe?

The plot rides on the wave of traditional comic book clichés, there’s the die-hard bad guy who wants to wipe out the galaxy and a bunch of oddballs trying to stop him. But the ubiquitous self-deprecating humour takes this tale up a level of fun, as do a bunch of likeable characters who have each picked up an extra bucket of charisma and whose fates keep you interested. James Gunn has capitalized well on his Troma beginnings, and he handles the wisecracking bizarre characters with aplomb and with humor that doesn't feel awkward or hammy. And tell me, is it possible not to love a film in which the protagonist is willing to put his life on the line to save his beloved prehistoric Walkman? I myself once, many years ago, as a poor student, bought my first Walkman with the last money I had saved and was happy as a pig in shit, so I understand Chris Pratt's feelings :o) And it wasn't even  a gift from my mother.

Gareth Evans is an incredible talent. His ability to compose shots in calm passages with pedantic precision reminded me of the first Kill Bill, where Tarantino also fondled every image. On the other hand, he always manages to spice up action scenes with some unexpected visual flourish and breathtaking vivacity, with choreography that is unrivalled today. Indonesian boys, hats off to you! It's a pity that the film as a whole is a mere wait for each excellent action sequence and the plot in between is nothing but necessary filler that fails to engage the viewer (at least in my case). Still, I applaud Evans and I can't imagine what this guy will throw at us in the future. Hell, he's not even thirty yet! It’s truly admirable how much skill he has despite his youth.

The more you know about the subject Clooney is talking about, the more the film will appeal to you. Whether it’s the role of an unassuming, conscientious woman of the people named Claire Simone, thanks to whom a large part of the looted artworks was saved (see for instance the documentary Hitler Museum from 2006), or the real characters of the Monument Men, whose fates have been the subject of several books, but it is thanks to Clooney that they appear for the first time in a feature film, and George has thus paid one big debt to these guys thanks to whom we can enjoy this beautiful art in galleries today. And there’s eye candy here, too. The film has a high visual value thanks to the great cinematography, a high informational value thanks to the interesting chosen theme (so I laugh at some of the silly criticisms here about the "no-agency") and the only thing I would criticize is how the forcefully added pathos in some scenes, or, on the contrary, inappropriately incorporated humour, clashes with the serious tone of the film as a whole. This, unfortunately, is something Clooney didn’t keep an eye on. But other than that, I'm really, really glad I saw it and I'm eager to read more about this interesting aspect of World War II.