Lima

I like the big productions of old Hollywood, like David Lean and others, but this was just weak tea, not even close to Bondarchuk's version. The Soviet version surpasses the American version in everything: it’s incomparably more narrative (the difference between a few hundred Hollywood extras versus 120,000 Russian extras, mostly conscripted Red Army soldiers, is damn clear, not to mention the fact that it is still the most expensive film production of all time), it’s much more inventive in direction, more interesting, richer in terms of locations (the 168 locations where the Soviet version was filmed is in the Guinness Book). Compared to that, Vidor's version is stripped down, lifeless, passionless and emotionless. And while I love Audrey Hepburn, even she couldn't hold a candle to Lyudmila Savelya and her charm, passion and irresistible immediacy.

What I appreciate about this film is its unpredictability. Miyazaki completely breaks the stereotype of fairy tales or fantasy stories – you have no chance to guess what will happen in the next few minutes, you are constantly surprised, the differences between bad and good characters are blurred (the one who is the embodiment of evil at the beginning can become a good friend) and all this happens without any stumbles in logic. Moreover, Miyazaki is like a small child, blessed with a vivid imagination, throwing one obscure idea after another in front of him. The film combines the classic fairy tale world with the industrial age of steam, the classic world of magic with crazy war mechanisms. The viewer's senses are so overwhelmed that the final impression sometimes teeters on the verge of being cluttered (which is my only complaint).

The problems and strife of the "adult world" seen through the eyes of a little girl. Maria Procházková has inherited good screenwriting and artistic genes, and although her story is not groundbreaking and has been told before in many variations, she has imprinted her film with a unique artistic sensibility that makes it stand out when it comes to comparisons. It also excels because of its slightly naive and playful undertone, just like the inner life of a young child with a vivid imagination. It's a shame that it was such a flop in theatres.

Poster tagline: NATURE GONE MAD!!! A WORLD OF TERROR – IT WAS A MONSTER YET IT WAS A MAN! YOU’LL HARDLY BELIEVE WHAT YOUR OWN EYES SEE!!! At the beginning of his career, Bert I. Gordon was very much into mutations of all kinds (and he didn't really leave them until his death). He became famous for the escapades of the mutated giant Lieutenant Colonel Manning (The Amazing Colossal Man and War Of The Colossal Beast) and in the meantime he made this genre film where many things are mutated, from mice to humans. This is due to a radioactive rock that’s causing an enormous growth of local fauna on the Mexican plateau where the film is set. And it goes like clockwork – the heroes' fight for bare life, plus giant lizards, a giant mouse, a tarantula, a hawk, a snake and the highlight, yes, the female lead’s boyfriend, mutated into a giant about 10m tall with a disfigured face and one eye. If I wrote in The Amazing Colossal Man that the rear projections are quite adequate for the period, here almost nothing works, the proportions are horribly off, different in every shot, and the fight between the cyclops and the snake is so badly edited that even Ed Wood would blush with shame. But the way the film takes itself deadly serious makes it irresistible silly fun.

Cronenberg gives a brief insight into the core ideas of Freud and his pupil Jung in an audience-friendly and simple form, which is a rare and welcome gift compared to complexly worded lectures on psychoanalysis or literary scholarly attempts to interpret their work. Yet, thanks to the breathtaking performances of all three leading characters and the masterfully written dialogues that often provide a hidden point, I find Cronenberg's film also attractive for the audience.

Emmerich has expertly surpassed his years of infamously built shadow. Although I don't share his conspiracy theory about the authenticity of the authorship of Shakespeare's works, at least the meticulous production design and the performances (especially Rhys Ifans) deserve praise. I don’t share some of the criticisms here about the lack of clarity. The seemingly complicated flashback narrative is not that difficult to grasp at the first viewing, you only need to remember about 5 names and be a little bit alert while watching the flashback jumps (and the ubiquitous political ploys) and there’s no risk of getting lost. And I also give a thumbs up to Emmerich for his courage to come up with such an inflammatory material in today's cinemas, where the deployment of commercial films is more like a controlled production process. I'm surprised at myself, but giving Emmerich a chance this time was worth it.

The direction is precise, with attention to details, even the unimportant ones when Alfredson is just playing around (a wasp in a car, a killed owl in a classroom), but otherwise the narrative is too distant and not very immersive. Gary Oldman displays an excruciating ease with silent glances and considered speeches, and is the brightest point of the entire film. Of course, there have been better spy plots.

Together with Dexter, one of the best crime series today. It has an interesting plot without any padding and a great build-up towards the end. The main asset I see in the two leads: the clever detective played by Mireille Enos (Emmy nomination) and especially her colleague with unconventional methods, who doesn't worry too much about regulations. He’s played by Joel Kinnaman, who joins the ranks of interesting European northerners (Stellan and Alexander Skarsgård, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) who have perfectly mastered the English language and its accent and found a place in Hollywood. Carry on Nordic lads, I’m rooting for you. PS: Please, do not compare this to Twin Peaks, this is a different concept, a different league, a different universe. PS2: After a riveting 2nd season, I'm giving it a full rating.

The best sports-themed film in years. It doesn't matter if you understand baseball or have a relationship with the sport itself, Sorkin's brilliant (again) script is all about passion for the cause, boundless faith in one's own judgement and in what one is doing, despite the risk of losing one's credit. The interactions between Pitt and Hill are a joy to watch. All this without annoying clichés and fake spectacular scenes that would make a stone cry (see e.g. Warrior).

Cliché over cliché where everything goes according to a template seen hundreds of times, following the expected tracks, when it’s very easy to guess the development of the plot for long minutes ahead, even the dialogues you can chew in your mind before the actors let them out of their mouths. The comparisons with Rocky are ridiculous; more than anything, Rocky was an original and unconventional love affair, while Warrior has nothing original and unconventional at all. PS: Forget the much-vaunted Oscar, boys and girls.