POMO

An excellent start and a spectacular demonstration of different monsters, buried under a faint yet convoluted plot and underestimation of the viewer’s intelligence. Thanks to Gareth Edwards, with the previous movie Warner Brothers has managed to pull off a respectable relaunch of the Godzilla cult by successfully blending the motifs and the atmosphere of the original Japanese myth with the pomp of Hollywood blockbusters. But instead of meeting the audience’s expectations, they entrusted the next two sequels to creators of mediocre horror movies. Sure, pouring the high budget into first-class CGI should be good enough for the stupid target audience craving cool-looking monsters, but let’s see if this approach changes with the new CEO.

The best two scenes open the third instalment of the John Wick series and are rather actually the ending of the second one. Then a new, slightly different movie begins. The outlined movie universe is developed and we encounter its power brokers. The journey to them, however, does not reach the dramatic epic nature or visual magnificence of Rome from the second part, with its disco, catacombs and the Camorra boss. And the stylish elegance of the previous sequel with its 100% focus on Wick turns into an unpredictable bit of surrealism with apparent errors of logic and multiple characters who influence Wick’s destiny in a manner other than with a lethal handgun. However, it is still a very enjoyable representative of the series within its genre.

A separation that did not have to happen. For me, this is Cannes 2019’ most powerful film. It is a film I would not bother watching after only reading the synopsis, but after it won in the Un Certain Regard section, I could not contain my curiosity. It does not work straightforwardly with emotions in the Hollywood style. The pain and sorrow you feel for the characters do not cause you to shed tears, but they weigh on your chest, even suffocating you. And you cannot help it, because you cannot help the characters. A beautiful film. [Cannes]

Beware of trolls. It’s a nice and fun wait for a wonderful climax that you don’t want to spoil for yourself. It is fun because of the duo of viewers’ favourites who delightfully enjoy every scene and gesture (ultimately, Brad has an even better role than Leo), and it’s nice thanks to the filming environment and nailing the cheerful colours of the carefree sixties in LA. Margot as Sharon Tate is the ultimate blonde angel, a balanced contrast to selected hippie girls from the Manson Family, who conversely are portrayed as the nastiest bunch and treated accordingly (bravo to Quentin for a courageous, fresh breeze of incorrectness in this fucked-up PC-obsessed era). However, in the dialogue and the meaning of individual scenes from the westerns of Rick Dalton (Leo’s character), as well as in the context of the movie as a whole, Tarantino’s creativity appears to be flagging. Like Franco Nero’s cameo in Django, it’s nice to have it there, but in terms of dialogue it was the weakest (or plainly just pointless) scene of the movie. Most of us consider either Basterds or (in my case) Django to be Tarantino’s masterpiece of the past decade. Do not expect Once Upon a Time to be on a par with those. Qualitatively, it is rather The Hateful Eight in an inverse, divinely lightened mood. And with a WONDERFUL climax. [Cannes]

A well-played, solid crime movie with murder and investigation, but without the added value of being connected to an interesting topic or a new creative style of storytelling. [Cannes]

For some, romance means Casablanca or Pretty Woman, and for others it’s this. A seemingly incompatible couple that bonded through S&M. It is interpreted openly, without reserve, but decently, civilly, with both seriousness and humour, and most importantly, it is believable, with a viable psychological background. This is almost unheard of in this rare kind of film. The director did not wish to make a controversial movie about S&M, but rather a humorous human drama about two outsiders coming together in an environment that is unknown or incomprehensible to most viewers. [Cannes]

The Traitor is a nice reconstruction of a great event in Italian history. Its mafia entanglements are a rewarding topic for the audience - lovers of dramas and thrillers will appreciate watching the actors’ various impersonations of mafia bosses. Therefore, it is a pity that it is almost as if the first third of a three-hour film was missing, because we do not know much about the supporting characters who keep appearing. Most of the mobsters whom the main character rats out and whom we later see in court (or elsewhere) are like disposable dummies and neither their personal relationship with Buscetta, nor what they’ve been through together is known to us. Apart from this drawback, which some viewers might not mind, it is a high-quality production with the excellent Pierfrancesco Favino. But personally, I am more drawn toward the fictitious, but more cinematic, atmospheric and dramatic Suburra. [Cannes]

A Hidden Life is a particularly subtle, yet emotionally devastating depiction of the horrors of Hitler’s war, as well as a poetic memorial to a conscientious Austrian farmer whose story is chillingly similar to that of a certain Czechoslovak historical figure (fascism and communism are the same thing, except that one of them took it further). At times, the film might seem needlessly protracted, but eventually it nails all of the ideas and feelings of the story collage. Also, the Austrian Alps have become my main natural summer haven bringing meditative catharsis, so it was easy for me to immerse myself in Malick’s interweaving of life and nature. A beautiful film. [Cannes]

They say that getting a film screened in one of the main sections at Cannes is the most prestigious festival achievement in the world… My ass. Nothing against the concept - revolting against the system and decadent liberation from social conventions are strong topics, and seeing people whipping or urinating on each other on the big screen in Cannes is a sought-after experience. But the mind-numbing elaboration, boring inflation of the runtime with slow and empty scenes of the characters walking in the woods and dumbly looking to the right for a minute and then to the left for another minute, then at each other for a while, then taking two steps to the side and doing it all over again - that’s just pure filmmaking jackassery. [Cannes]

A delicate study of two women brought together by fate who help each other in difficult life situations and change the negative attitude to the circumstances in which they find themselves. One might argue that this premise could have been part of a more complex story with a more interesting plot, but it is so psychologically accurate and so masterly performed that it is able to move viewers without any further adornment. All it needs is for the characters to talk, feel and react to each other. [Cannes]