lamps

If there's one thing Christopher Nolan really knows how to do, it's to grab attention with a uniquely constructed story, which is exactly the case with his wondrous Following. Nothing expensive, nothing overly ambitious, and certainly nothing bursting with ideas, but you can get a lot out of even a little, and you can get even more out of it with your own skill and care. Of course, in terms of overall quality, this is only a minor creative warm-up for the far richer Memento, but Nolan proved himself in his debut to be such a skilled cinematographer, such a great screenwriter with a unique sense of timing, and, most importantly, such an excellent director that Following deserves no condemnation at all alongside all the Batmans and Inceptions. But you’ll have to see for yourselves. :-) 75%

I’m enjoying the development that the trilogy is going through so far, both in form and content. From an emotional human blockbuster with a distinctive auteur story to a bleak post-apocalyptic vision shrouded in dark colours and an insistent sense of impending conflict. The story itself is admittedly more or less generic and, with its clearly defined ideas and roughly sketched characters, it’s accessible even to the least perceptive patient of a Polio ward, but the experience stemming from the unearthly CGI and the gradual escalation of the seemingly controllable situation is nevertheless extremely engaging and, thanks to the atmospheric charge, this time the considerably more violent action scenes are as intense (albeit in a different, cheaper sense) as in the first film. Evil and good may have been clearly defined since from the moment they enter the stage, but their motivations remain so strong, logical and fateful that they far outweigh the unsurprising consequences of their actions... The visuals are truly fantastic, there are lots over-the-top sequences, and the scene of the year.. An incredibly very strong 4*.

In the context of the film's ambitions, which largely focus on the more complex and mainly darker side of Johnny Cash's personality, there's not much to reproach. Mangold is very adept at navigating the rock 'n' roll scene and wild life of the 60s, and he handles the interweaving of the three basic plot levels – Johnny's mental decline, the fateful love between him and June, and the problematic relationship between him and his father – with understated craftsmanship. But the film sticks to this scheme so tenaciously that the true and unique story about the beginnings of a music legend ends up being a classic Hollywood romance devoid of any surprises. But that doesn't change the fact that the film itself is great, that Johnny Cash's music is timeless, and that Joaquin and Reese not only look great together but also sing absolutely amazingly well. Superb filmmaking, deservedly rewarded with the attention of the Academy. 85%

Weaker than the previous entries, but it's hard to say what it’s actually missing, probably because there's a lot more stuff. First of all, McClane himself and his famous principles are much crazier and while in the previous films he managed mostly with handguns, here he prefers to run over his opponent with a car and when he shoots, it’s originally through his own person. And secondly, whereas before McClane made do solely with his own wits and the villain syndicate had a limited scope (a skyscraper, an airport), here the whole United States is at risk and the villains are being eliminated with the help of modern computer systems and dumb hackers. But importantly, even these new trends suit McClane, and in concert with a capable director (which Wiseman is within the genre) and a humble script that gets out of the way of the excellent Willis and leaves room for his exquisite pitch-black humour, the result can be an immensely entertaining and story-packed action treat that does the famous Die Hard brand no shame whatsoever. However, I would only award five stars if the film was produced by Marvel, added sci-fi to the list of genres, and McClane was named McMAN – then everything would be perfectly fine. :-) 80%

This is a colossal mystery. Unless I have watched a completely different film, I can't explain why The Third Man's rating far exceeds its actual objective qualities. The story makes no sense and dully maintains the tension by listening over and over again to dialogues about one "mysterious" event. Perhaps, it was successful in its time thanks to the participation of Orson Welles, who plays a truly "mysterious" character, and also for being shot on location in a crumbling Vienna, whose narrow streets were perfect for a story full of mysteries. Today, however, the film would have a hard time fitting in, regardless of the fact that noir is sort of past its prime. I give three stars solely for the last fifteen minutes, and also out of admiration for the director, who managed to work quite skilfully with the predictable mysteries for almost 70 minutes. But this is a movie with too many mysteries for my taste. :-) 60%

This is how you recongnise a good director. Scott has shown us here (and not for the first time) that he has no problem shifting from blockbuster budgets and earnings, big historical themes and megalomaniacal quests to smaller stories about real people, who admittedly have somewhat unusual moments, but we still can fully believe them. A Good Year is very a human story that caresses the soul with its easygoing, sometimes even salubrious atmosphere of sunny vineyards, refined British humour and above all Russell Crowe's acting, which is no worse than in Gladiator or A Beautiful Mind. Story-wise, it’s nothing extraordinary, it’s just wading the waters of the hackneyed theme of moral redemption by the influence of a beautiful setting full of even more beautiful memories, but what I appreciate all the more is the work of Scott, who once again managed to squeeze every last drop of both Crowe's performance and, this time, all the ripe wine out of a slightly rotting and almost empty warehouse. 85%

While the second one was an easygoing parody ride without any attempt at significant horror, more or less just a dull mindless script repeating the same jokes and situations over and over again, the first one is somewhere in between. And by that I mean, unfortunately, exactly the place where a well-paced black-humour story about a group of people who are suddenly terrorised by a bunch of Nazi zombies in their cabin in the middle of a snowy forest suddenly succumbs to the convulsive seizures of the scriptwriters and ends up in a toilet bowl after a harrowing journey. In other words, both films can be described by the popular term crap, but while the second one is digestible thanks its simple and more thoughtfully dosed ingredients, the first one, due to its own indecision between entertaining and scaring and, finally, its inability to portray in any interesting way at least what it was leaning towards at the time, is doomed to a quick flush into the depths of oblivion. Two stars exclusively for the suspenseful first half and for one very original gore scene, the rest is just heavily edited mush (or rather laxative) :-) 45%

Hollywood melodrama of the 1930s in full swing, with spectacular Da Vinci-like scenery, impressive orchestral music, delightful overacting and lots of passionate romantic gestures and dialogue. But most importantly, cinematically, it’s an admirably mature and full-bodied work, visually accomplished given the resources available and surprisingly engrossing and thought-provoking considering the kitschy storyline. In the first half, the film works as a very realistic (mostly emotional) reconstruction of the American Civil War, and together with the female protagonist we have the opportunity to soak up the atmosphere of that time. The second half, in contrast, is a typical product of "hard romance" with all the aforementioned flair, but importantly, even this passage, entirely devoted to the psychological level of the demanding relationship between the two protagonists, does not lack anything that every connoisseur nowadays imagines under the Gone With the Wind label. And then there’s the two stars: the beautiful and charismatic Vivien Leigh, who instantly won my viewer's favour, and the charmingly easy-going Clark Gable, who would have got me through the four hours even if the film itself wasn't as charming and timeless in its delivery. But I have to stick with 4*, because it's really incredible and mostly deliberate kitsch.. :-) In its time it would have been a sure 100%.

I didn't expect it to ever happen again, but after all the Ryans, Lists and Apocalypses, my dislike of war has now deepened even further. It’s not complex or strongly patriotic, it’s an emotionally gripping psychological drama that says what it wants to say and still manages to entertain with thoughtful dramaturgy and performances. And if you're a guy and you like Natalie Portman, you've got one more reason to watch. 85%

Such high hopes, and nothing coming out of it. Blomkamp is excellent at his craft, there's no doubt about that, but if he continues to choose themes from the "Pretty Silly Blonde" category, it will all come down to his memorable debut. Elysium looks good, has an interesting cast and the basic premise is not worthless, but something so clichéd and ridiculously serious cannot even be considered the work of an A-list filmmaker. It's still good entertainment, but the ambitions of the film were somewhere else – and that's the main problem. 50%