Kaka

James Spader's role as an FBI agent is questionable in this otherwise average and unremarkable thriller. Personally, I found it fitting, he portrays the federal agent convincingly, his remarks are accurate, and his character is smart enough. But it’s hard to understand what Keanu Reeves was doing there, just like the whole wannabe cool plot. It's a pointless waste of time, and I don't understand how this project got the green light from the studio given the budget.

There are films that you simply and easily fall in love with, even if you don't really know why. I want the 1990s back with its typical romanticism, heroes with their hearts in the right place, great action, ordinary stories, and its unique and unmistakable electronic and rock music.

Lasse Hallström can create a somewhat romantic atmosphere, or a little-town idyll. What was missing in most of films of his that I’ve seen is the necessary emotional power, or perhaps the magic, that can leave a lasting impact on a person. Chocolate is the first one that has somewhat succeeded in this. It is impossible to resist comparing it to the similarly romanticized The Cider House Rules, which, despite its sunny shots and “cute” faces, had almost no emotions and ended up labeled as “overly sweet”. Chocolate is just right, considering its name, it even has a slightly bitter taste at times. Nevertheless, it maintains an irresistibly romantic mood throughout, full of good-hearted individuals of all ages and the fact that a woman's heart can possess the same amount of strength as ten sumo wrestlers.

The downward trend in the quality of this monstrous trilogy becomes truly unbearable in the third, and hopefully last, installment. Compared to the first part, the action sequences are unnecessarily bloated and computer-generated (the only well-shot scenes are the cannon shots). In contrast to the second part, the there’s less exaggeration and over-the-top wit from the main characters, who were not always truly funny, but the viewer was generally entertained. This can hardly be said about the third part, though. Apart from a few scenes, most situations are downright ridiculous and cliché, not to mention the incredibly muddled editing and sequence of scenes. I don't think we should incredulously shake our heads wondering if the director is serious, not even in the case of Pirates of the Caribbean. And here, there are not many restraints.

A fast and relatively entertaining story, primarily relying en the excellent performances of the Al Pacino and Johnny Depp. The former does not play anything new, it’s still the same good-old mafia pose with a healthy dose of vulgar expressions and his own thinking, as we are used to. On the other hand, the transformation Depp undergoes during the film, is extremely interesting. The connections between the characters are carefully portrayed with perfect timing and polished dialogues. However, this story is already quite worn out, despite the fact that Al is not the big boss this time, he’s a small time outsider struggling with his life failure, but this does not change anything on his big heart. It's an entertaining film, but far from being as high-quality as other milestones.

It is a put together and quite old-fashioned (meaning slowly) woven story about a clever lawyer played by a relatively solid Tom Cruise at the beginning of his rich acting career. From a film perspective, The Firm offers quite a lot, its appealing plotline, although not as balanced as needed in terms of pace, provides a relatively solid dissection of the legal system and a whole range of related tricks. Moreover, it’s presented in a truly clear way for viewers who can confidently consider themselves lay in the sector. Unfortunately, this extensive and relatively long colossus is quite impersonal and lacks a substantial amount of any magic or personal sympathy. Sydney Pollack knows how to direct skillfully, but this time he forgot about the spark among those piles of papers.

A bland popcorn flick that can hardly be compared to the first one, which was more minimalistic and less mass audience-oriented. It lacks drama and a “realistic” portrayal of history, and it also lacks the typical action story and action itself. The characters deliver cliché dialogues, their relationships are black and white, leaving our eyes only for the excellent Cate Blanchett and a few very intimate scenes. Forget about seeing a thrilling naval battle, if you are seeking quality and interesting content better turn to the captivating Master and Commander. In the end, Elizabeth: The Golden Age it’s like seeing an average and completely unimpressive mediocre film.

This film is a brilliant showcase of the current state of the middle-of-the-road commercial mainstream of Hollywood's wannabe cool modern production, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that it's pretty shitty. The film is full of cool quotes, the action is even more action-packed, the biggest tough guy is even tougher, and the sex bombs are even sexier (which is actually the only thing that didn’t bother me). If this mess was supposed to directly parody or imitate some famous films of the past, it failed. You won't see anything more stupid in the cinema this year. I don't understand those star names, I don't understand the incredibly confusing and bad action scenes, I don't understand this whole garbage wannabe stylish action flick. It might make you laugh at times, but certainly not in the right sense. A giant piece of crap.

A typically verbose, costume-drama, whose creator is (or was) even more old-fashioned than old-fashionedness itself. It’s a downright boring film that for about two-thirds is only worth watching for strong-willed individuals who love intense performances, or fans of British culture and dining in the early 20th century with all that entails. The huge cast of quality actors was truly necessary because they are the only thing that make those one hundred minutes watchable and kept me from pressing the OFF button on the remote control. With the onset of the criminal plot, things start happening, at least in passing, and the resolution is interesting. But the screenplay is so extensive that it is practically impossible not to get confused in all those names and characters in the first screening. Oscars should go to better films.

The black and white camera and wannabe intellectual dialogues don't necessarily make a quality and unique film, and that is exactly the case with Dead Man, which I am not afraid to describe as a heavily unengaging and absolutely repulsive borefest. All that take about having to “feel” the film is nonsense, there simply isn't much to feel. The plot is banal, the performances are somewhat dull (Depp’s being the only decent one) and the point? Nothing. Jarmusch simply throws the viewer into a pond and let them splash around up to their ears without helping or even hinting at anything, and he doesn't realize that the water in that pond is quite dirty and getting out of it is not an easy task at all. The only exception would be if they intended for it to be a pure comedy, but that doesn't fit. Two painful hours in front of the television screen.