MrHlad

Quite suspenseful and a bit different than the usual thrillers mainly because it focuses on a pair of killers, not cops. Karel Roden is cool, Edward Burns is a prude, and all in all I found this to be a relaxing above average film.

1917 will be talked about as the war film that was shot in one take. Which it isn't, but we all know that, and I don't feel like anyone should mind. However, it would be a big mistake to just look at it as a technically perfect film where Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins fool around with the camera. The latter is, of course, amazing; 1917 looks like a computer game, with the camera managing to pan around the characters during dialogue, crawling along with them across the battlefield with cameraman looking for the craziest but still functional angles from which to capture everything. But the main star here is still Mendes as the narrator, who manages to get under the skin of both the characters and the audience in that "one shot". Initially, cold and distant, and like one of the soldiers, he treats the whole mission as just an order to be carried out, hoping to survive. Gradually, however, he begins to acknowledge the importance of the mission and very powerful and emotional scenes subtly, but eventually very intensely, surface. And for example the whole passage in the burning village or the very end are incredibly powerful moments. The film doesn't just look great. It's great throughout.

A more than a decent B-movie with a tough Kurt Russell. Solid entertainment. Now a classic, but not necessarily to everyone's taste.

Sandra Bullock can't act, the script isn't worth much either, but the film has something that just doesn't allow me to condemn it absolutely. That something is my all-time favorite Steve Buscemi. It's simply because of him that I can't give it one star.

An incredibly stupid script in which all the members of the army behave like morons. Fortunately, the director saves what he can. But it could have been MUCH better.

No script, just something to look at: nice cars, nice women, that's all. If that's enough for some people, that's fine, but I prefer a little more story.

Definitely not a legal drama, but there have been many better things made in this genre. Despite the decent script and quality performances, I was bored quite often. It was kind of slow...

I love stuff like this. Carl Weathers is awesome, the action is pretty good and there's some good dry wisecracks. Yeah, it's a B-movie, but it's a great B-movie. And I love it!

One of the best "dumb" comedies. And even though it's dumb and stupid, it's also very funny. You just have to be ashamed that you think it's funny, and I'm not ashamed.

It looks beautiful. Hoyte Van Hoytema deserves an Oscar, the vastness and grandeur of space is literally palpable. It's beautiful to look at, the sound design its great, and in that respect Ad Astra can easily stand alongside both Interstellar and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Unfortunately, though, the film is tripped up by its story, or rather its delivery. The plot itself, with its search for a father and other motifs, is not uninteresting, but neither is it fundamentally new or revelatory. That wouldn't be a problem, there are some questions that people will probably always ask, but James Gray seems to have no confidence in his audience and leads them by the hand unnecessarily. Instead of letting me meditate on life in the middle of infinity, he tried to serve me answers right under my nose. It was uncomfortable. It's as if Gray knew he had made an interesting and clever film, but didn't trust his audience to interpret it for themselves, so he tried to make it easy and, for my taste, unnecessarily too easy. Which, for me personally, ended up spoiling the overall experience.