Remedy

I really wasn't expecting so much tasteful humor along with a rather rich plot (for a romantic comedy to be sure). The story of each couple is irreplaceable, the intertwining is gradual and thoughtful, and the acting is very enjoyable. This film warms the heart, caresses the soul, entertains, moves, and leaves you with purely positive feelings. And Robbie is the most sincere and endearing character (I'm not a homosexual or a pedophile), his persistence towards Jessica is admirable, funny, and evokes no small amount of sympathy for his character. The more romantic comedies like this that exist, the more the majority audience base of the genre will be restored (cultivated?) and the world will be a little better for it.:) The complete absence of childish and cheesy humor is replaced by a wonderful narrative about love relationships across all generations – spiced up with brilliant casting and an overall natural impression. One of the genre film highlights of recent years. I was ultimately put off from giving it full marks by Cal's overly sweet final speech.

As far as Daniel Radcliffe is concerned, I wasn't particularly surprised by the reaction of the majority of the audience. "So sad that he’ll never shake the shadow of Harry Potter, however otherwise excellent his acting is" (I'm paraphrasing). From my point of view, Daniel Radcliffe's performance is really outstanding, although he is understandably painfully young for the role of a father struggling to save his family. But as I've already written, this minor casting flaw is amply compensated for by his acting skills, and I'm very curious to see what future roles "Harry" ;-) will appear in. I had the opportunity to see it in the cinema, so the "audio" scares (the vast majority of the scary scenes here are based on sound work) were not bad, but when watching it in a quiet and warm home, their intensity is almost nil (verified:)) The script may not be all that original, but Eden Lake director James Watkins is adept at his craft and visually his The Woman in Black is a very accomplished affair. The intro is especially wonderful.

Sam Mendes is one of my favorites. Apart from his undeniable creative qualities, this is mainly because he is not shy about making advertisements for American society that are not always flattering. The story of his latest film is perhaps not even some hidden harsh criticism of American society, but rather he tries to present different types of people with different characters and different values in life (which certainly need not be limited to Americans). Basically, it is a simple story, but its charm lies in this minimalism – the incredibly likable main couple with all their sorrows and doubts will win your heart very easily (yet in a very gentle and appealing way). Funny, clever, and touching at the same time. One of the few films that are sincere and feel natural. Anyone who sees it as calculating probably doesn't like strollers. :))

Damn well written, acted, and directed. Tendentious in relation to "how people should think about this film" and what conclusion they should then draw from it. The whole "bad boys gone good" storyline (or, in the case of Rihanna, Good Girl Gone Bad) is commercially brilliantly handled, sold, squeezes out the emotions, and willy-nilly pushes the viewer into the philosophy of believing that all hate and anger is tiresome and life-threatening. It's just... it's just that even though almost everything in this film works as it should, in this work there’s no amount of deeper thought that would also make you think more deeply. Paradoxically, the pissed off main character, with all his resentment and hatred, remains the driving force of the entire film, which is a bit funny with the final quote that urges us not to get pissed off and hate our fellow human beings. I'm certainly not saying that American History X is a bad film. Formally and commercially, it is truly a work of art. On the other hand, it boggles my mind how many people get sucked in and fooled by such an essentially linear and superficial story (okay, even I succumbed a bit for a while). 4 stars, but no more.

In the end it’s not a complete travesty, as I feared reading most of the negative reviews here. But far be it from me to suggest that I'm among the defenders and non-critics of Scott's take on Robin Hood. The first thing is more than obvious, and while it may be just a "minor quibble" for some, for me it's a pretty substantial quibble and the first major misstep in the production of this film. I'm referring to the casting of the "aging" Russell Crowe, who is undoubtedly an excellent actor, but tragically unsuited to this role. I was also disappointed by the music – if these films usually don’t "play" with a proper script and elaborate characters anymore, the supplemental components should at least be some kind of satisfaction, which somehow doesn't work in the case of one constantly reiterated polyphonic theme. Nor is Ridley Scott as creative and imaginative as usual this time, so in the end the whole film is dragged along solely by the sets and respectable exteriors. The convoluted and sometimes heavily naive story won't surprise anyone anymore. A borderline 3 stars.

This is by no means a formulaic revenge tale wrapped in stunning visuals. At the same time, I'd also be reticent to make the opposite claim/assessment – that this is perhaps some kind of deeply thoughtful and authentic portrait of contemporary society (probably Japanese, but the theme can be perfectly generalized to other developed countries as well). In its treatment it is purely original, where the usual pigeonholing and deep reviewing might be pointless, because (at least in my opinion) the whole film radiates incredible energy, boldness, and an excellent ability to use all possible space to make the result as attractive as possible for the audience and make some of the philosophy worthwhile. To dissect the twists and turns in detail and try to convince that "this or that" was a bit over the top would be unfair and superficial nitpicking. For if a film is generally said to be "well made", this Japanese example should be the prototype and model for all "inventive Western filmmakers" who want to make macho films like Fincher while remaining academic in certain respects (like a select number of Spielberg films). An incredible blast, I wasn’t far from ecstatic during the opening half hour and I didn't know what was coming next. It's not a 5-star film, but at least an 8-star film.

Absolutely badass intro with a fantastic, thematically perfectly matched soundtrack. What follows the opening credits is a display of totally professional worksmanship, which is really without formal flaws. Fincher can be confidently placed in the very top tier of directors, regardless of genre, continent, target audience, or similar benchmarks. I will preface this by saying that I have read the entire Millennium trilogy and seen the full Swedish film rendering. This is useful in comparing some aspects, by which I also want to show why Fincher is better in some ways and why he falls short in others (but only in very few). The Larsson source material is unparalleled, and that is not merely by far because it served as the template for the Swedish and now the American adaptation. The first book in the trilogy is extremely rich, readable, gripping, and far from being a mere whodunit – it asks a lot of philosophical questions and forces you to take a stand (perhaps a moral one). Although a more thorough probe into Lisbeth's soul and life doesn't actually occur until the second volume, the first book already outlines the brief foundations of her personality, which naturally develops in content over the next two volumes. This is what I found lacking in both the Swedish version and Fincher's take: a larger and more elaborate psychology of the two main characters. Of course, the resulting films should be judged as something created by the necessary trimming of the source material, so that viewers unfamiliar with Larsson's books wouldn't stare at their watches every half hour (absorbing even 90% of what happens in the book would make the film a minimum of 4 hours), but then you also have to take into account the fact that the final film's message is completely different from Larsson's original idea. I could go on comparing, but it's actually pretty clear that the main character's profile won't be fully developed until the next two installments – and I'm extremely curious to see how Fincher handles that. As for the film itself, I can say that it has great pacing (again, thanks to the snappy dialogue and very dynamic editing), definitely better casting than the Swedish version, a brilliantly icy soundtrack, and charmingly composed flashbacks. Had Fincher delved more into the main character and made Rooney Mara act more emotionally in some passages (at least after the rape scene), his adaptation could have taken on a completely different edge. Not to mention the basement finale, which, although it has the uncontestably superbly nasty Skarsgård, is somehow bland and flavorless and actually almost gives the impression that Fincher was in a hurry to get somewhere, just to be done with it. Still, a work like this has to be judged separately from the usual Hollywood productions (even the very good ones), because the way it's shot and the way Fincher presents himself as a director is exceptional. Still, we can mention this as a weak moment in his work, which I hope he will remedy very soon – the final installment in the trilogy in particular could become an unbelievable hit under his direction.

Moneyball has a lot to offer and it really shows in the result. There really was really nothing to work with in writing the script here; working on this film requires sensibility and a huge amount of information, which Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin have managed to pull together admirably. I don't like baseball, I don't watch baseball, and I don't really care about baseball as a sport. So I can't quite understand why I felt a pleasant tension and was terribly excited to break out the first game under the new strategy. Perhaps this can be attributed to the excellently constructed storyline, the intelligent and rich dialogue, the brilliant Pitt and Hill, or the simple fact that the filmmakers managed to present baseball in perhaps the most enjoyable and imaginative way. An (un)believable piece of honest filmmaking.

A more superficial, exhibitionist and, in terms of overall concept, simpler take on Fargo. All the facts that play out in a similarly "serious" vein in similarly-themed genre films are presented here with brutal humor and exaggeration instead. Some scenes are indeed very intense, but at the same time incredibly funny. Fargo is strong in its chilling story and in its parade of utterly insane, eccentric, yet hugely interesting characters. Big Nothing is a very distinctive piece of filmmaking that relies on the darkest possible humor, a simpler storyline, and several quick successive plot twists, rather than deeper sophistication, urgency, and Oscar ambition. But this certainly doesn't detract from the film's brilliance and entertainment value.

A very wacky, but at the same time very impressive, purely original affair. A bizarre story complemented by an even more bizarre Banderas pederast who is wonderfully demonic in his role (though still compared to the likes of Hannibal...). The visual composition is certainly worth mentioning among the individual details, and it looks restrained and aesthetic, which contrasts greatly with the overall story, to which such adjectives would not fit too well. Still, it cannot be denied that it has a solid structure, a strong directorial signature, and a very specific atmosphere, which is really very unusual and takes the whole film to a higher level of originality and perhaps even a certain uniqueness compared to other productions. And from this point on, I'm simply not going to use the phrase lightly: "I've been a bit out of my skin lately" :))