lamps

In the details, imaginative and stylish, as a whole, captivating and without a single scene that would hit the viewer harder than its eye-candy potential. The transition between the opening sexy music video and R-rated revenge thriller is poorly scripted and underdeveloped, and there is a terrible lack of a higher level of naturalism that would have made at least the second half a much more painful experience (at times I had to laugh due to the overacting of the bad guys in suspenseful or violent scenes). On the other hand, it’s the novel form and cool electronic music that turn every minute into likeable B-movie entertainment, along with the unstable bad guy that looks like Eli Wallach and, of course, Matilda, whom I would give similar roles twice a year – she would make even Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey accept the role of rapists :D 60%

Perhaps no one could narrate the course of a global catastrophe as consistently and dynamically as Soderbergh. Contagion is not about disease, it’s first and foremost about people; about their reactions and practices that comprehensively reflect real social conditions and flaws. We have an ordinary father trying to survive with his hysterical daughter, a deceitful manipulator who wants to profit from everything, a good-natured kidnapper who tries to help his underprivileged peers through blackmail, a drug developer, a field worker and an anonymous crowd that logically panics in a crisis and makes things difficult for the characters. The script is psychologically pared down to basic and understandable family relationships and jumps between many characters, but their lines are always informatively and cumulatively causally connected, so that the film presents a truly complex and intelligent story. The direction remains deliberately grounded and unspectacular, first emphasising the temporal cycle of the contagion, then verbally presenting a likely development, and finally setting up again a dynamic game with time, where the characters literally wait for deliverance (and don't always get it). Soderbergh once again cuts between the lines brilliantly and the narrative stutters slightly only in the last act, when he starts to repeat some motifs a bit; I didn't like the fact that the almost documentary-like grip and unemotional message has to give way to a classic conclusion. The acting is, of course, precise and, on the whole, properly urgent – that's how it would certainly happen. God save us! 80%

An icon to which I owe much, and I’m not exaggerating. When I was little, it made me fall in love with Hollywood big movies, and with the passing of the years and with each new viewing, it has enriched me with more and more discoveries of how to make a perfectly polished and narrated Hollywood big movie. The immense ease with which the story is carried, unravelled and concluded is only a reflection of the meticulously thought-out screenwriting process and the result of Steven Spielberg's admirable work. Even after at least the fiftieth time, it makes me so happy to get carried away by the initial ideal family idyll, which gradually and smoothly turns into a thrilling adventure ride with the raptors that the film tastefully and systematically introduces in the opening scene. Spielberg's production design and Williams' brilliant score cause goosebumps with unlimited staying power, and the stunts just don't get any better or more believable. I love this film, its characters, its world, its story full of timeless directorial tricks (the vibrating water surface, the tree, the rebooting of the system...), and I love the unprecedented aware merchandising. Iconic status with capital I.

There are a lot of things about Mad Max: Fury Road that truly fascinate me; here are the most important: 1) The unexpected development of the story and the way it manages the attention of the viewer is not something you see often (if ever) in thoroughbred action flicks. The film and its world are introduced in words by the supposed protagonist, who subsequently becomes a passive figure dragged involuntarily by circumstances and literally trying to do only one thing: survive. These words then basically describe the entire plot, which is simple and based on a few major twists, but at the same time unpredictable as a constant struggle for survival and the related rewriting of ways to stay alive. In a mad, crumbling world without rules, women are the only way to survive – young, healthy and determined women who set the nature of the decisive clash with a male-dominated civilization. Women, who are then involuntarily rejoined by the supposed protagonist and a renegade enemy who is saved again only by the love of a woman. Women who are heading somewhere "Green", but the script eventually cruelly reassesses their determination to get to paradise, and the goal lies 180 degrees away from what the viewer long expected (which may or may not be a wise joke on Miller's part, for what woman doesn't do that 180 at least once a day? :). 2) Action scenes that do not serve as a mere adrenaline attraction, but are a solid and defining component of the aforementioned narrative system; during them, the protagonists develop psychologically, divide and clash, or directly fulfil their personal motivations and goals. The action sequences are even separated from each other by a classic four-act narrative at their core (the first act ends with a flare in the sand after the first set piece, the second with the death of one of the heroes after the second set piece, the third with the revelation of the fake MacGuffin, and the fourth with the journey back and logically the longest set piece). 3) The actual development of each action scene is a detailed rehearsed process in which Miller thoughtfully capitalizes on sub-themes, and each shot has its own undeniable status and weight (Furiosa exchanges a sympathetic look with the chained Max during the first action sequence, laying down their future trust). 4) We already take sophisticated audiovisuals for granted in today's A-list productions, but this film takes the popular notion of "pummelling" to another level. When CGI is present, it looks wonderful, but above all, you can see that it was done in real life, with real vehicles and crazy stuntmen, and that the stars sweated like Miloš Zeman walking up to the first floor. The visuals of the constructed world are as breathtaking as its male moral disjointedness (and its feminist soul appeals to me). 5) Editing techniques in perfect harmony with the energetically pulsating soundtrack, which I consider one of the best of this millennium, and the utmost clarity make every scene the ultimate juicy, high-octane product of cinematic entertainment. I could go on for quite a while, because Mad Max: Fury Road is without a doubt one of the most amazing movie experiences of my life. Original, inspiring, one of a kind. Charlize Theron is beautiful even as a man, Tom Hardy is truly awesome. If there's ever a sequel, I'll be writing the most anticipated review of my life. 100%

Sterile is the right word to describe. Less humour, a worse villain and more boring direction than the first one. The highlights are the wickedly hot Scarlet and the charismatic Downey, the rest is a well made but absolutely forgettable comic book concoction.

A watchable popcorn flick with a clear target audience, built on boxing movie clichés and relying solely on the core robot gimmick. It's pulled forward by the likeable Jackman and the fights in the ring, but it's knocked down by predictability and a runtime that is too ambitious for such a simple film. For one viewing only, but definitely a nice sci-fi nod to the Rocky of the genre.

MEG runs mostly on two things: the predictable problem with accessibility, which makes the potentially adrenaline-pumping and thrilling premise suffer from constant downplaying and visual softness; and the attempts to humanize the main characters, which mostly look terribly ridiculous – we have the most classic cast: from a doctor to a whiny black man to a pretty scientist, and of course we have Jason Statham, who is initially mired in booze and remorse, but for most of the film he's an incredibly cool, fearless superhero, so that the viewer gradually comes to see the shark not as a terrible threat, but as someone looking forward to Jason’s next heroic stunt. But I’m cool with it. MEG lost any A-grade ambitions with the announcement of the creative team, and the production poured the 150 million into deliberately dumbed-down and great-looking entertainment where everybody es having plenty of fun (Statham pulls it off outrageously, Turteltaub occasionally delights with inventive action or suspenseful point-of-view shots), and if it weren't for the aforementioned attempt at personal conflicts and the associated boring dialogue, the film would have flown by. Making a family film with a bloodthirsty shark is no joke, and the creators quite managed it. Even the dog survives in the end. 60%

Think what you want about Troška, but with this folk tale he simply hit the bull's-eye. The whole thing looks like a continuous improvisation, with some attempt to convey a barebones plot, but maybe that's why it’s so easy to watch, and maybe that's why it became so popular. It is undoubtedly a faithful reflection of the Czech village nature, where you are never far from a slap, where you go to bed with a bottle and where corpulent peasant women with knotted eyebrows rule the dances. As a summer diversion, inoffensive and basically unique – no one else in the world has made this and no one else will.

Or How to effectively combine a classic monster movie with the modern tradition of found footage horror. It's no wonder that Reeves and Goddard are building such promising Hollywood careers thanks to this. Cloverfield is a superbly constructed recreation of a nightmare, focusing on the immediate circle of a group of hapless heroes. The story unfolds rhythmically in regularly changing locations, cleverly subverting the audience's expectations just by cramming into the foreground more genre tropes than the viewer would expect from a film with a giant monster devastating New York. I will probably need a second screening for maximum satisfaction, when the originality and narrative certainty will surely affect me even more strongly. EDIT: The second screening induced maximum satisfaction. 90%

An ambitious shot in the dark. It has some moral ideas, but they’re wrapped in an insanely lengthy filler that pretends to be an artistic rebellion against the traditional narrative, but it's just a few classically punctuated episodes in an aimless structure. The actors are excellent and some scenes are very strong, but that's not enough. 2 ½*.