Kaka

Half documentary, half film, with a proper dose of pathos (which can be understood as naval propaganda) and considerably uneven action. If you trie to be fully realistic, helicopters shouldn’t be in the sunset several times during the film. Watch it rather out of curiosity, because besides the otherwise well-shot action (although nothing groundbreaking), the film essentially has nothing to offer. On the contrary, the absence of a quality cast makes it impossible to not laugh at the stupidity of the dialogues, or rather their delivery by the main (non)actors.

A film that unfolds in one's mind in an unprecedented way. Let's go step by step. Huge expectations, especially after Nolan made a fantastic promotion with The Dark Knight, it was said he to have nowhere else to go. It is not possible to make anything better, more complex, more magnificent. It may well not be. This installment is not better than the second. It is different, and in the end, it turned out exactly as it should have: American, with its head held high and a torn flag. In all aspects it’s more classical, more pathetic, and essentially simpler and more clichéd. I wasn't expecting a return to finding oneself like in the first film, yet there were many elements here that were absolutely the same. Bane – one of the most anticipated villains of all time – yes, mission accomplished, with his monumental, demonic personality. During the scene “Who are you? I'm Gotham's Reckoning”, I had to blink. And this film has plenty of moments like that. Especially in the “mental” sequences from the prison – this is the good old Nolan that works just as well for the third time. The action is traditionally not the main attraction, it’s pragmatic and austere, essentially just a small bridge in the dense plot. Unfortunately, the closer the film gets to the finish line, the worse and less cathartic it becomes. The final seems very weak, American, and quite unexpected to me. I often missed genuine emotions, which were abundant in the first two films. But then the question arises: what if they are there, but we have become desensitized to them because we got used to them? Speculation. It is definitely necessary to see the entire trilogy in one go. It is not a disappointment, it is still the big film of the year that will make a lot of money and win awards. However, the middle part seemed more complex, urgent, and had more twisting scenes. Hans Zimmer is still brilliant and the Joker is on par with Bane!

I hoped that after the new Batman episodes and the reboot of the series, whose old episodes are basically forgotten or, at best, set aside, filmmakers had finally understood how to adapt comics. Unfortunately, they did not. While Spiderman could have similar attributes to the torn hero Bruce Wayne, there is a difference. Unlike the millionaire, we have a simple guy who has his own problems with identifying with his alter ego. But there is a complete lack of fatefulness and the further you go into the film, the more you can feel the flaws from previous episodes: sentimentality, righteousness, last-minute help, the transformation from a bad boy to a good boy, a caring aunt and a proper uncle – by the way, Martin Sheen is excellent. Ladies and gentlemen, it's boring. The action is decent, the first-person shots are innovative (otherwise, the technical aspect is hardly distinguishable from the older films), but there is no deeper meaning, no thrilling scenes. The film works best (intentionally?) as a story of two teenagers getting to know each other – the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is captivating. I expected more, but the only reboot is maybe only from a commercial perspective.

An incredibly cheap and essentially stupid movie, but it's beautiful that the people behind it are aware of it and are having as much fun as the audience, which unbelievably stares at the screen every few minutes. I didn't expect Guy Pearce to be this cool and for Maggie Grace to have such balls. Surprise on all fronts, or in other words, even with a few bucks, you can a pretty decent action that doesn't rely on a dumb script, but rather on the charisma of the main actors and a barrage of arrogant lines.

Ocean’s Eleven (slyness, elegance, a team, a main boss supervillain in an expensive suit), Phone Booth (attempt at thrilling pace and tense dialogues), Inside Man (nothing is as it seems). It's a mix of a number of films without any real balls. Without Genesis Rodriguez (for her looks) and Ed Harris, it would be significantly weaker than the standard in this genre. Fortunately, the chemistry between Sam Worthington and Elizabeth Banks works pretty well. Worth watching once and putting it on the shelf, so it can gather dust.

It's good to see it as basically the debut of Daniel Espinosa's, an almost unknown director, at least for now. At the same time, Safe House is a film with a script that doesn’t have any higher ambitions, but within the mainstream, it’s more than solid. Fortunately, it's not just a dumb action movie, although it slightly leans towards that thematically. It's saved by the excellent cast (Reynolds, Washington) and intense, kinetic action like Jason Bourne. Espinosa certainly didn't disgrace the genre, and I wouldn't be afraid to entrust him with a bigger budget, a more interesting theme, to raise the bar a bit and let him work his magic. He knows how action and fast pace should look like.

It's a wonderfully positive and magnificent affair, unfortunately with a very poor script and dramaturgy. I can only give it an average rating for a few things that will be deeply embeded in memory: the visual effects (a mix of Avatar and Star Wars), the adventurous music, and the mythology to some extent. Don't expect any great performances, because there aren't be any. Taylor Kitsch is one of the most plankish actors in Hollywood, but it's unbelievable to say that occasionally he is also likeable. I don't understand those 250 million and I understand that the return is meager. It's a classic popcorn movie through and through, but without transcendence, proper catharsis, groundbreaking ideas, or political incorrectness. And that's generally not in fashion today. In the 90s, though, it would have been a hit.

A film that will make a real mess in your head. In my opinion, there are several ways to perceive it, and it is difficult to say which one is the right one. Is Ridley Scott really beyond his peak, and did he really mean this empty script seriously? Does he need to give illogical explanations in the second part to squeeze out more money? The film has plenty of unanswered questions, also its intention? It all seems strange, just like the rating, which is very lukewarm. I have the impression that Prometheus will end up like Blade Runner over time, it is also technically timeless, equally ambiguous, perhaps more ethereal and iconic (tears in rain, doves), but it has many common elements. Yes, at first glance, the script seems rushed. Because the first hour is pure sci-fi orgy, meticulously executed down to the last detail, brilliantly acted, with a stunning main musical motif, and technically flawless. In the middle, the film turns into a survival drama, which is effective but divides the audience in two. Probably only in the director's cut, we will truly find out what Ridley means – or Blade Runner for the second time. I’m not afraid to say that over time it will become a timeless film that needs to mature. Just unlike Blade Runner, there are too few key answers and too many questions, and the bridge in the form of philosophy and figure it yourself is slightly missing. For that reason alone, a lower rating for the so far most controversial film of the last months or years within the genre.

Standard stuff. The main shootout is not great, the camera is bad, the story is solid, but the execution and theme are basically average, sometimes even trashy. During the introduction, I hoped that the Miami Vice-style setup wouldn't be just a few initial shots, that there would be a lot of similarly perfectly tuned elements throughout the film, but that was not the case, unfortunately. There are a few bright moments, but otherwise, it's just average, pure and simple, with Wahlberg playing his typical tough guy again.

David Fincher's directorial style is beautifully easy to recognize, he imparts it to every one of his films. Brilliantly crafted dialogues, musical score, uncompromising atmosphere. This film could have been made in a number different ways. Essentially, it is a considerably clichéd and well-known story about a serial killer, but in the hands of a master, it becomes a unique cinematic delicacy, where ordinary things are presented in a completely extraordinary and distinctive manner. In the end, it is a seemingly well-behaved and coherent film that is brutally eccentric and demonically precisely shot. I wouldn't expect anything less from Fincher.