Kaka

A routine affair, but definitely not a complete disaster. It's surprising that a lot of otherwise excellent and very inventive creators and actors are behind this very average film. I enjoyed the raw fights and the decent gunfights, the ultra-cool Penn and the likeable Brolin, though he is much better on the opposite side of the law, like in American Gangster. It's not nearly as intricate, skillfully written, and technically precise as, for example, Ridley Scott’s film, but it's worth seeing once. Purely average.

The people behind this film fortunately quickly realized that this won't be another Terminator 2 and that it won't work "directly" with Arnold anymore, so they went about it cleverly. Thanks to skillful editing and camera work, the main protagonist is quite watchable, although many other things here are downright hopeless. An awfully boring and generic villain, inconsistent action (excellently edited shots intertwine with horribly confusing and chaotic ones), uneven pace, average one-liners. Sometimes I felt a brackish feeling. Yes, self-parody doesn't hurt (sometimes there is nothing else left) and it's still quite alright, but don't expect anything groundbreaking. It's not in any way progressive or clever from a creative standpoint. Just an average action movie with a few very interesting chases in a cornfield.

Slow yet captivating filmmaking with precisely portrayed war conflict realities and fantastic characters, especially Jessica Chastain, who was born for agent roles. She already delivered an excellent performance in The Debt – also an outstanding film – and her tour de force continues here in full splendor. It is interesting that Kathryn Bigelow is capable of directing far grittier and rawer films than most of her male counterparts – at least when it comes to big-budget productions. Zero Dark Thirty is a cold, refined affair that knows exactly what it wants to say and how, where symbolism alone is enough and where uncompromising action is needed, which has no equal in terms of realism – I am primarily referring to the final raid, which is truly brilliant. It is admittedly too long, but dense, highly watchable, and being that it’s based on true events amplifies the overall experience. An urgent film without a message that will become a legend, mainly because of its authentic depiction of modern warfare.

As is often the case with Hilary Swank, the film relies primarily on her captivating performance. Her portrayal of a tough and determined sister is compelling, endearing, and convincingly raw in a way that viewers can't help but appreciate. Surprisingly, even Sam Rockwell, an otherwise average actor, is excelled in his role as a prisoner. I wouldn't dare categorize Conviction as a classic courtroom drama, it doesn't quite reach the quality of, for example, Paul Haggis' The Next Three Days, which is more mature and sophisticated in its portrayal of prison life and the planning of the escape plan, but Conviction is still a good film. It is very down-to-earth, subtly conservative, and Hilary is an incredibly impulsive “great woman”.

I feel that there there are already too many parts. They all try to be similarly funny and everything will work out, just like our main heroes who, on the brink of sentimentality, remember things were back in their younger years. From a dramaturgical point of view, it's not bad, many scenes are well-tuned (thanks to the director’s and especially the actors' experience in the genre), unfortunately, it doesn't avoid the classic clichés of sequels (rekindling after years, etc.). So as a short digression, it’s alright, but as a full-fledged sequel, it's tired and devoid of ideas. I would call it a "hollowed out" theme.

Nowhere near as thrilling as the first one, even Liam Neeson looks noticeably more bored, you can almost see that he doesn't want to deal with the whole situation again. There's a lack of creativity, a lack of toughness, a lack of believability. The first film had many unforgettable scenes, within realistic limits, perhaps even authentic. Here, there's hardly even one. It has a few decent action sequences, but otherwise it's just a confusingly edited routine without a trace of invention. I don't understand how such a great and original first installment becomes an average B-movie without any ambition. I didn't enjoy it at all, and I really like the first one. I expected repetitive plot twists, but not such a weaker imitation.

A visually incredibly sophisticated and attractive, color-filtered, tuned, purely "image-based" film. Not that the solid plot would be on the second place, but fans of the director's work know exactly what to expect. For an uninitiated viewer, it will be a consistent film in all aspects and a solid experience whether in the cinema or a high-quality home projection, for example on DVD. Well-acted and musically stylish, the film has a solid pace and an appealing feeling, as always, skillfully reflecting the present time. This time, instead of sports, we have drugs here, but it’s still watchable.

The finale didn't come across as intensely tense as, for example, the table scene in Inglorious Basterds, but it was still very well done. Tarantino's directorial style doesn't really need praising, it is precisely because of it that people go see his films. Many viewers may not expect him to be confident in the realm of westerns, with everything that entails, from costumes and a bit of history to superbly stylised set design. Christoph Waltz leads the cast, it’s noticeable that he's a theater actor, he is very extravagant, (his character in the film is also like that, so it doesn't matter), and perhaps slightly pompous in terms, but at the same time he’s incredibly charismatic and entertaining. Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio are as expected high-quality. It may not completely meet expectations, but it is entertaining and most viewers won't feel they've just watched a 165-minute-long film. It goes by quickly, mainly thanks to the clever story structure and the sequence of beautifully crafted dialogue scenes. The bloody finale is only for "Tarantino fans."

Woody Allen is fantastic at staging dialogue passages that demand a lot from the actors, but when it works out, it's beautiful. The actors for this project were brilliantly chosen and the film is flawless in its formal style. Owen Wilson's Gill is perfect as a torn artist who is smarter in his mind than in spoken words, the superficial characters are detailed and iconic, just like Hermes Birkin, playing a supporting role, and the "golden age characters" are timeless and warming, supported by excellently fitting sets and period music. The outcome is not as cathartic as most of the audience would probably want, but I think Woody is just playing and teasing with the viewer in this case, there was no deeper intention here, Paris is enchanting even in this rendition. Perhaps slightly self-indulgent and unnecessary, but a refined and formally grandiose film that is intelligent enough to be liked.

Suffering. It is solid craftsmanship with excellent production design, where inexperienced viewers will say, “this was a truly valuable and artistic film after a long time”. The qualities are debatable, but not due to my dislike for the genre. Not even Russel Crowe and Hugh Jackman singing can save it, no matter how good they were in their roles. Throughout the film, I had the impression that if there was no singing, it would have been a considerably better experience.