Kaka

It’s difficult to speculate to what extent the experiences, emotions and situations depicted are truly authentic and relevant, as the experience is so very specific, unique and unimaginably agonizing. From the filmmakers' point of view, we can call it more like "directorial or scriptwriting ideas" and a kind of an extract of clips and experiences – or perhaps one of the turning points of a 7-year long story – and there weren't enough of those ideas and clips for an emotional charge. It's a raw, sharp and straightforward film, it's just that the setup is too lacking in density and cohesiveness and some crucial question marks towards the main characters arise as the story progresses, but the viewer isn't given the answers, and so the most complete and emotionally resonant scenes are often the simplest (Jack with the dog, etc.). But credit where credit is due to both the direction and the fantastic Brie Larson, who has set up a career as a dramatically talented actress like Nicole Kidman and Julianne Moore. Lots of music in a minimal amount of space, but there’s no orchestra.

A slow and hypnotic film whose fragile emotional plane is the most interestingly story in a long time. Too bad about the uneven second half, which falls short to the slow-moving first half, though it doesn't change the overall quality and the feeling that after a long time you are watching something completely new and original, even though there have been countless personal stories about fateful love and omens with more or less mysterious touch or interesting twist. Jonathan Glazer surprises in the uniqueness of some scenes (a 2-minute shot on Nicole Kidman's face, for example), where you can feel the inner turmoil and dispair of the main characters even without words. The final shot gives the feeling that you missed something and can be interpreted in multiple ways. One of the few films where the closing credits come at a moment when you absolutely don't count on them.

A mix of proper western atmosphere (the sounds of the prairie, the small town, the sets) with an uncompromising carnage that is so explicit you see it in mainstream films only every 5 years or so (last time in The Hills Have Eyes 2), because it goes far beyond the normal. S. Craig Zahler focuses mostly on the characters, their symbiosis with the wildlife and their interaction with each other. The script is utterly unpredictable until just before the finale, when it turns out to be a slaughter. Cut or speed up the first half, stretch out the second half and it would probably be a bit more entertaining.

Unbelievable how this dirty unplugged version of romantic naive shit rocked the British film industry at the turn of the new millennium – it can hardly been cool in its day, let alone a decade on. When you consider that romantic classics like The Bodyguard or Love Actually are still modern today, i.e. timeless, and don't feature the word "fuck" 100 times, or lots of awkward scenes, or a slightly vulgar main character besieged by two gentlemen – both free-thinkers on overdrive – it makes you think a little whether this film is so inventive and genuinely good.

A a barrage of positivity that relies on the typical trademarks that Cameron Crowe sprinkles into each of his films: strong characters that you can't help but sympathize with, some sparkle between main characters, a common goal to work towards, a dash of emotions and personal attitudes that need to be changed, all adding to one of the film of the year. Crowe hasn't overstretched himself this time around, and made a modest, intimate film that is emotionally transparent and relatable, even though it's actually woefully unoriginal and ordinary. But even fleshing out the characters and dialogue and adding a catchy soundtrack is quite a feat in a production like this. The last scene is awesome.

Interestingly contradictory stuff, an example of a film that has become terribly dated in its technical and expressive means over the years, but Polanski does sure extract a great atmosphere from the Parisian streets, creating a suffocating and highly depressing feelings of paranoia around the main character, something timeless in such stories. It's not about the twist, or the finale, but the careful puzzle building, the direction of the actors, and the great sense of editing and uncovering the pieces of a simple story in a sophisticated creative delivery. It certainly felt better and fresher at the time of its release, but if you squint your eyes, it can also work today. With hindsight, on the other hand, what stands out is the dark atmosphere and filmmaking craft, which need to mature a bit.

Scott Mann tries to make a Michael Mann film and fails miserably, and his sort of raw, shaky digital camera shots are completely doomed. It's almost incomprehensible what an inept director he is, because, with this kind of acting potential, where every person oozes charisma, and with such a strong premise, one could do wonders. Similarly, the screenwriter obviously took a vacation during production, because cramming in so much crap is really an art, and the closer the film gets to the finale, the worse it gets. It's dominated by a would-be grandiose twist that easily surpasses the one in Ocean’s Eleven. If you like De Niro, don't watch it.

Impressively done, full of light and sunny shots, but still a class below, say, Jane Eyre. And while both films are formally very similar, dealing with similar things, Jane Eyre is more contemporary, rawer and more authentic. Far from the Madding Crowd has too many dream sequences that often don't even make much sense, they are more like eye-candy. It might be argued that this doesn't matter so much in 19th century Victorian England, but the opposite is true. Matthias Schoenaerts, on the other hand, is as excellent as ever and the rest sort of clicks into rhythm. Certainly not a bad effort, but there are far more interesting pieces in the same rank. Great music by the way, which heavily rips off The Village.

A fantastic social satire and a masterfully drawn probe of the age-old rivals – poverty and wealth. But Woody Allen is not so transparent and silly idealistic as to show that being poor can be cool and being rich, or the habits and attitudes of the rich, are actually superficial and bad. He goes much further and blends the two worlds in a sophisticated and very sober way, showing even the complete opposites, while eviscerating and then presenting perfectly clean real-life situations every two minutes or so. When someone makes documentaries about animals or flora, it's fine, when Woody Allen makes documentaries about people, it's even more interesting.

A solid relationship drama, with the novelty of Hawaii at the forefront, delivering a surprisingly distinctive, considerably relaxed atmosphere that contrasts with a tense story about a dying mother and a dysfunctional family. Alexander Payne has reinvented the world with Shailene Woodley, so thumbs up for that, and George Clooney plays his typical likeable character with aplomb. It's a shame about some of the expected second-rate twists, but it maintains good diction in key scenes thanks to a conversational script that's pretty polished. For the author of the renowned Sideways, this may not be entirely a coincidence, but his main weapon.