Kaka

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.

The first one was simple, but also time direct and enjoyable. Red 2 has the same ills as, for instance, the sequel to Ocean’s Eleven: a layered plot that is confusing, crammed with different locations, jarring shifts and cuts, etc. It has no juice and the second time around it's a tired borefest. Not much action either, and the stuntmen are too visible. If it weren't for Helen Mirren in an unusual and unique role, and John Malkovich in full blast, this would be crap seen a hundred times that belongs in the toilet.

Bradley Cooper's acting plasticity and vivaciousness is astonishing, but otherwise this slightly extremist-looking chase for a Michelin start is a bit too simple and too much for the average consumer who is content with the kebab next door but doesn't care much for delicacies. I would have imagined a less routine narrative and more interesting characters like the main one. At the very least Sienna Miller could have been, as could Daniel Bruhl, or the reprehensibly underused Alicia Vikander. These meals aren't about the process of eating, they're about emotion. I expect the same from the film, but the flaws are noticeable.

Given the incredibly mind-numbing screenwriting filler, I'm also tired of the screaming, visually climactic destruction that Snyder can do. He managed to pull it off in Man of Steel, because he had a solid story where he could afford to do it. It's just that this dark backdrop like in Watchmen with a story like Adventures of the Gummi Bears falls far short of bringing the viewer to satisfaction. There are lots of side characters that are unnecessarily overused and have no business being there, and reprehensibly underused characters that are interesting and you want to know a lot more about (Gal Gadot). The word total bummer then is the actual "sparking" of Batman and Superman, where you don't absorb their motivations for hostility, whereupon two minutes into the duel between the two worlds, they're best buddies guaranteed not to betray each other. The digital mess at the end just tops off the resulting headache. After this ride, you're not too thrilled when Snyder has a couple of skyscrapers demolished or nukes the place. Zimmer only added loops, otherwise it's basically the same soundtrack as Man of Steel, and Ben Affleck is a cool Batman who lacks a more realistic anchoring in a more tangible human world like in Nolan’s films. What he does improve on are the great personal fights, but Nolan never excelled at that, and that's common knowledge. ULTIMATE CUT is significantly better. The film is much broader, with a number of shots added, so the whole feels more whole, with a sense of detail. Definitely a different tone than the one set by the Marvel mashup. Darker, more epic, more fateful. A star up.