Kaka

A relatively heterogeneous crime story that may not captivate with its simple and straightforward plot, but does impress with the contrast it offers to the viewer. For a moment, we see an almost retro crime story full of tough cops, and a minute later, we see a mentally disturbed couple killing women and children in often quite brutal ways. Lonely Hearts is certainly not a bad film, it has a decent cast, but unfortunately, it fails to touch the heart. Travolta's character is downright artificial, his emotional issues are unnecessarily highlighted and unbelievable. The emotional bond with his son is also poorly portrayed, and there are some question marks hanging over the murderous duo as well. It's not a bad project, but I understand why it's missing from cinemas. It still feels closer to a TV production.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for Lee Tamahori. This guy is a really bad director, and if Next didn't convince anyone, then XXX had to. Starting with unbelievably bad visual effects, ending with a completely insane plot twist, his latest piece has countless mistakes, and the finale gives the film the proverbial crown of stupidity because it contradicts the entire essence and outlining of the main character and his natural abilities. Similarly interesting is the portrayal of Jessica Biel's character, who only needs two minutes in a restaurant and suddenly it's love for a lifetime. In short, the viewer can expect nothing but quality throughout the film.

Not nearly as progressive and daring as one would expect from the David Fincher. After several visually brilliant downers, he puts us to sleep in a perfectly balanced and “cinematic” film about a mass murderer, where there are very few murders, but a lot of talking, and just the right amount of atmosphere. The plot is linear and not at all complicated, which is truly a miracle, because with similarly executed films, you usually lose track of the names appearing on the screen after just a few minutes due to the director’s incompetence. But here it's different, everything is clear, we know what is happening, we know how it's happening, we just don't know who the real killer is. Several scenes are expertly escalated and fantastically performed, but several shots are like an eyesore (incredibly obvious and awkwardly styled digital shots of the city, inappropriate to the atmosphere of the 1970s). And so the film essentially just mumbles, and the viewer goes on their way. It's a nice watch, but too long and not dynamic enough. It certainly can't be considered a textbook film.

It’s probably true, Ridley Scott, is getting better the older he gets. He’s directing even stronger stories than in the past, but just as visually brilliant, and the actors in them play fantastically – better than ever before. One would expect that at his age he would only enjoy making movies and shoot easygoing films like A Good Year, but that's not the case. Scott is fiercely pursuing success, he’s still as enthusiastic about filmmaking as before, and thanks to this spirit, he was able to make a thrilling and intense film like American Gangster. Fantastic in terms of acting (Denzel Washington is magnificent), visually brilliant (cinematography, editing) and in terms of the production design and complex depiction of the 1970s in the American metropolis, it is hard to beat. It’s not a better film than Goodfellas (slower pace), but in the current times of garbage in the sewage, it is a clean, winding and proud bandage on the cinematography of commercial Hollywood. After the second and third screening, one of the best gangster movies ever. Better, more compact and with a bigger heart than Goodfellas. Josh Brolin is awesome and so is Washington.

Stephen Hopkins has unfortunately withered away similarly to John McTiernan, for example. There were times when he was able to direct thrilling films like Predator 2, or even better adventures like The Ghost and the Darkness. Unfortunately, time passes faster than one would want, and since then, he has obviously forgotten how to make a quality film. In terms of atmosphere, The Reaping is relatively decent, but the well-built story structure turns into something indescribably silly and pompous in the second half, with several interesting sequences completely wasted. I don't understand what a talented actress like Hilary Swank is doing here, and David Morrissey's character is nothing special, either. His role in the finale is the essence of idiocy, even someone after lobotomy would understand that something isn't right half an hour before the end.

The first film had heart, the second was empty, but its formal style was excellent and, with the help of the same ensemble, a quality musical score, and meticulously crafted details, it was still relatively watchable. The third one is the worst. It's not as big of a leap as between the first and second parts, but Danny Ocean's team is really struggling for the third time. The new face in the form of Al Pacino is definitely a plus, but this time the plot is even more convoluted and relatively unexciting and sterile, which is a big minus. Even the formal aspect is not as interesting as before. For fans of gentlemen in Armani suits, with gold rings on their fingers and big wads of banknotes in their wallets, it's a watchable and very average. For everyone else, it's already a quite worn out and exhausting rollercoaster ride that runs out of steam even while putting together the unbeatable heist plan.

Questionable in every possible direction. At its core, The Fountain can be a simple and straightforward film, it doesn't need any hidden and shocking twist, but getting through its hard and intellectually difficult shell was beyond my abilities. Rachel Weisz is only here for decoration and all the acting skills are demonstrated solely by Hugh Jackman, who delivers the best performance of his career so far. Throughout the entire 96 minutes, he is literally filled with emotions, something that cannot be said about the film. Touching and personal passages are followed by heavily uninteresting and deafening “WTF” scenes, during which you can hardly believe what is actually happening. In terms of visuals, it’s definitely immensely interesting, but plot-wise it’s quite confusing (the question is whether intentionally), and in terms of whether the film expresses something, it’s hard to describe. I am of the opinion that Aronofsky has prepared a confusing mix of philosophizing, an equation without a precise result, letting the viewers, take whatever they deem appropriate. Some are enthusiastic about the outcome, others disappointed.

The hard-hitting dialogues unfortunately do not make up for the insanely sentimental backbone of the film, which is cynical to the point of woe. The characters are flat and simple, everything is superficial without any believability or realism. Throughout the film, Mimi Leder presents us with a fairytale story about a good boy, whose final act forces the viewer to shed a tear. I can imagine the sweaty director behind the camera trying to shoot some scenes with the highest possible dose of tearfulness, that's how it looks according to the final product. It's not completely bad and the script initially has a relatively interesting storyline. Unfortunately, it becomes increasingly clichéd and tearjerking. About eighty percent insincere.

A much more sincere and stronger war film than the tearful and extremely pathetic Flags of Our Fathers. Clint Eastwood really stepped up his game in the second film, which, in contrast, shows the conflict from the other side and tells an excellent story full of Japanese traditions, customs, and tactics. How accurately it reflects reality can only be judged by eyewitnesses and war experts, but I dare say that the film was presented to the audience in a very bearable way. Thank God it doesn't just show the Japanese as suicidal lunatics and heartless killing machines, but also portrays them nicely from the other side right from the beginning. From young boys separated from their families to high-ranking officers with connections to the West, who are willing to proudly sacrifice their lives for their country. Watanabe is excellent, the action is decent and the non-combat scenes are very impressive. This solid film is worth watching if inly for the fact that we may have the opportunity to see a comprehensive view of an event in the war from this different and culturally distinct perspective, despite some minor flaws and a slightly excessive runtime (or rather, some unnecessary scenes).

With the passage of time, it is increasingly evident that the sequel to the famous predecessor is essentially running on fumes. In the first film, the Predator was excellently outlined, but here we don’t learn anything new (and the ending doesn't say much). In addition, there are several technical and narrative mistakes and shortcomings that overall detract from an otherwise decent impression. Some scenes are, of course, impressive (the subway, the slaughterhouse), but otherwise, it is essentially a forced sequel that was mainly meant to attract fans of the monster to the cinemas. Arnie is sorely missed, Danny Glover the necessary charisma. The Predator's weapons are cool, but otherwise, his journey to the city didn't do him much good.