MrHlad

Ten-year-old Jojo and his imaginary friend Adolf would do anything for Germany. But when the little hero discovers that his mother is hiding a Jewish girl at home, everything changes. Taika Waititi directs a visually very imaginative film that alternates poignant and harsh moments with humorous ones, and Scarlett Johansson and Sam Rockwell give some of the best performances of their careers.

1917 will be talked about as the war film that was shot in one take. Which it isn't, but we all know that, and I don't feel like anyone should mind. However, it would be a big mistake to just look at it as a technically perfect film where Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins fool around with the camera. The latter is, of course, amazing; 1917 looks like a computer game, with the camera managing to pan around the characters during dialogue, crawling along with them across the battlefield with cameraman looking for the craziest but still functional angles from which to capture everything. But the main star here is still Mendes as the narrator, who manages to get under the skin of both the characters and the audience in that "one shot". Initially, cold and distant, and like one of the soldiers, he treats the whole mission as just an order to be carried out, hoping to survive. Gradually, however, he begins to acknowledge the importance of the mission and very powerful and emotional scenes subtly, but eventually very intensely, surface. And for example the whole passage in the burning village or the very end are incredibly powerful moments. The film doesn't just look great. It's great throughout.

An incredibly stupid thing about an island that grants wishes but makes them into nightmares. Obviously, the people behind this film weren't even clear on how the whole thing was supposed to work, and given that director Jeff Wadlow can't come up with a single workable scare and is even worse at working with atmosphere, the result is utterly trivial and almost laughable. Avoid it.

Ignore it. Birds of Prey wants to be an edgy, perhaps even controversial film full of gritty and dark humour, bold directorial choices, strong characters and uncompromising atmosphere. But for that to work, the film would have to be made by someone more skilled than Cathy Yan, who gives it a pretty interesting visual look, but has absolutely no idea how to work with the characters and how to build relationships between them. And given that this is pretty much what Birds of Prey is supposed to be about, it's quite a problem. But she may also be a problem in that when Harley goes solo, she turns out not to be a very interesting character. This team-up wants to be something like Deadpool, but the the tough girls of Gotham can’t even hold a candle to the verbose mercenary. They're still good in the action scenes, but once they start talking and building relationships, it becomes apparent how boring these heroines are and how all that toughness and grit only works on paper. Behind the R-rating and the wild colours, there is a film can’t hide the fact that it has no ideas and is boring most of the time.

This story of four sisters coming of age in the mid-nineteenth century and figuring out what they want out of life is surprisingly relevant in the twenty-first century. In it, Greta Gerwig gives space to the actresses in particular, who certainly don't let her down, and she handles the touching and funny scenes with complete ease. An honest and entertaining modern adaptation of a literary classic. It's just a pity that it is perhaps unnecessarily cold and aloof in its first half.

I'm satisfied. Very satisfied, actually, because Guy Ritchie promised to deliver a Guy Ritchie-style gangster movie, and he did. So the only potential problem I have with his new release is that it sticks to the beaten track and makes only minimal attempts to surprise. But it doesn't really matter, because Ritchie knows this genre like nobody else, and once again he manages to make a very brisk film with unexpected twists and even more unexpected directorial ideas, in which all of the actors (probably most notably Hugh Grant and Colin Farrell) clearly enjoy themselves. Ritchie has a way with slow-building tension ending in absurd violence reminiscent of the beginning of Pulp Fiction, but he manages to switch gears to his typical frenetic pace within moments. He manages to be funny and entertaining, and moments later his characters go regular scared. He's just the Ritchie we wanted to see. Nothing more, nothing less. That's good enough for me.

I didn't believe it could be really good. I didn't really hope it would be. So I ended up having a hell of a time at the cinema. Bad Boys for Life is an excellent action comedy with the classic Jerry Bruckheimer signature that not only matches the previous installments, but in many ways surpasses them. True, Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah are not as imaginative and aggressive in the action scenes as Michael Bay used to be, but they easily fit into the "above average Hollywood craftsmanship" box and have enough ideas to keep the audience entertained during the shootouts and chases. Far more important here, however, is the humour and, above all, the perfectly natural chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. The two clearly enjoyed their roles immensely, and they thoroughly enjoy returning after all these years. Their dialogue exchanges, bantering and mocking each other feels natural and genuine, but most of all, it's genuinely fun and funny, and you suddenly realise that they had no idea how much they had missed Mike and Marcus. Bad Boys for Life is the kind of honest action comedy that only the most optimistic could hope for. And despite a few slightly over-the-top twists, I'll admit that I don't really know what Bruckheimer and his crew should have done to make it better. This movie made me terribly happy.

An entertaining underwater horror b-movie that paces and looks great from start to finish. However, when it slows down a bit at times, it turns out that all the characters are terribly simple and flat and you don't really care who lives to see the end credits. Most of the time, though, it has a very solid pace and the result is an above average underwater variation on Alien. If you're missing something similar at the cinema, definitely don't resist Underwater. Don't expect a revolution, but the above average craftsmanship isn't lacking either.

I've always liked Rian Johnson and I like how inventive his films are, and I think the best word to describe Knives Out is ‘cunning’. Johnson manages to lull the audience initially by making the film look more or less like a classic whodunit, with several suspects and a killer hiding among them. But after about twenty minutes, Johnson starts playing with genres, procedures, story and overall directorial delivery. He makes several drastic style changes, manages to poke fun at the audience, the clichés and his own characters, and is one step ahead of everyone in the room the entire time, for just when you think you've got Knives Out figured out, you find that Johnson has once again outsmarted you. And you're going to love it. By the way, I haven't seen a movie in a long time where it's so terribly obvious in all the actors how much they are enjoying their work and characters.

A biography of the man who was the first to set foot on the South Pole and who disregarded his loved ones for his voyages of discovery. But rather than an adventure piece, expect a drama, whose hero is an unfortunately unapproachable stubborn man, with whom the two-hour running time drags quite a bit. Neither his family nor the director could find a way to reach him.