Kaka

Technically, Transformers is undoubtedly a fantastic ride and it is incredible what they can make nowadays for a lot of money. Unfortunately, the entertainment and overall childishness of the film come at the cost of an absence of logic and at least a bit of the seriousness that was present in all of Michael Bay's purely action films. Some lines are funny, but some are so clichéd that you don’t even react to them. The actors are your typical pretty-faces – Bay's common practice – and the music, thanks to Steve Jablonsky, is solidly dynamic. What surprised me the most is the style Bay uses to shoot the action. There’s an unusual amount of handheld camera and shaky shots, with classic trademarks such as camera tricks, slow-motion, and low-angle shots taking a back seat. The truly beautifully lit quieter sequences and two helicopters against the sunset are not absent, though. After watching it for the second time, I’m giving it another star. This has happened to me several times (and now it will probably be the rule), having a better watching experience at home than in the cinema. Even the action looks much better and clearer on a smaller screen – the big cinema screen only harms it. I stand by the fact that the film is infantile and stupid, but Bay occasionally winks at us, doesn't he? And the annoying British or whatever accent of Rachael Taylor will be ringing in my ears for a long time...

Three Stories, or safe betting, for the third time. Alejandro González Iñárritu delivers exactly the same film again, and to some extent, we all fell for it again. Babel is undoubtedly the most artistic film in his career – or at least tries to be in overall composition, intellectual strength, use of music and silent scenes, handheld camera… The three stories are interwoven together in a somewhat simpler and more viewer-friendly form, which does not require such precise timing and sequencing of scenes, or the precision of the editor. Unlike the director's previous film, Babel can be easily understood on the first viewing. The acting is not revolutionary, rather standard, with many impressive scenes and a formal stylization that is appropriately minimalist, with few colors. It is economical, simple, and overall raw, but it feels somewhat clichéd.

Boo! is not a completely accurate rating because, from a technical standpoint, there is still something to look at here and there. Some of the gore effects are interesting, as well as the relatively intense action scenes and minimal number of slow-motion shots. However, in terms of plot and overall concept, it is such a disgustingly and repulsively awful mess that it does not deserve even the slightest bit of pity. The director would need a triple brain examination. The first would be for the face of the film because no mentally stable person could make such garbage. The second would be for the unbelievably poorly chosen actors and the heaps of lapses in logic. And the third would be for the naivety with which they ventured into a sequel. Why? It was not needed in the slightest. The first one had some level of sarcasm and intense action, not to mention some blood. The second one is just carnage with a brutal amount of disgusting nastiness that make one want to skip certain moments.

Perhaps the saddest, slowest, and most sentimental of the entire saga, with an absolutely banal storyline and a ton of outrageous clichés. Nevertheless, there is one key word that nobody can resist, not even Hollywood triviality and its classic effort to squeeze as much money out of the viewer as humanly possible, and that word is nostalgia. It doesn’t matter how many times you’ve seen him, you still can't help but root for the protagonist, and Stallone definitely deserves clenched fists not only for the gripping and touching scene in the meat-packing plant, for which I would gladly award him an Oscar in the imaginary category of the best performed moment of the year. His fists are still strong and even though the finale is heavily edited and confusing, it's still worth watching. The pleasant supporting roles bring joy, the typical cloyingness is annoying, and the blatant simplicity is striking, but they squeeze everything out of it and the legend can end with honor.

Full of clichés, predictable scenes, and all the possible shortcomings of the current middle wave of mainstream Hollywood. For Andrew Davis, however, it is a fairly solid and watchable flick that critics and audiences won't tear down like they did with Collateral Damage a few years back. You won't exactly swoon over Ashton Kutcher, but he surprisingly fits well in a tougher role. Kevin Costner handles it without any problems, and all the key positions in the training base are filled by the kind of tough guys who are usually cast in these types of roles. The action scenes are sufficiently action-packed, and the training scenes are interesting and suspenseful enough to keep the audience's attention. The ending is slightly contrived, but that was to be expected.

What a colossal waste of time this nonsense is. The cast may be worth paying attention, but don't expect great performances. Once Michael Biehn takes off his military uniform, it's all downhill for there, and don't even get me started on Demi Moore's histrionics. She is possibly even more embarrassing than her artificially made belly. And even the promised and conceptually inevitable Armageddon is not worth anything. The ending is dull and unremarkable, numerous situations do not correspond with each other, some scenes seem unnecessary, and everything is topped off with a dreadful television feeling. Stay away.

A darkly minimalist romantic drama about unhappy love that boasts excellent music, truly strong emotions, above-average performances, and last but not least, solid atmosphere. Unfortunately, the slightly slower pace reduces its attractiveness and audience appeal, so opinions on the quality of this work may vary greatly. But no one can deny the how well the protagonists are portrayed and the director's ability to shoot romance in an old-fashioned way without falling into kitsch and awkwardness.

It’s hard to speculate about why this legendary Kevin Costner flop became such a failure and literally a symbol of a film disaster. But there are several positive things to be found in it: sensible and perceptive direction, excellent action scenes (the sequence where the main female protagonist picks up the M16 and starts shooting indiscriminately is unforgettable), and even the core idea is not bad. Unfortunately, Costner did not do a good job writing the characters, and for example, Will Patton did not turn out well at all. There is no shortage of pathos, and unfortunately, it is at times unbearable, but it is definitely a film that does not appear on screens every moment, so it deserves attention, as well as recognition for the effort and reasonably well-done work, although it could have been much better.

This arrogant, self-absorbed mainstream ride is supposed to be the best film of this year that has won so many Oscars and other awards? I can't believe it. Martin Scorsese should wake up to the reality of today's world after those beautiful years and understand that “American” stories of tough guys are no longer in fashion and he should stop trying to replicate or hint at the unattainable pieces of his past work. The quality of The Departed, whether it is a good or a bad remake, can only be judged by someone who has seen both films, which I am not, so I take this film as a separate compact entity without any comparisons or regret about how it should have been. However, as a crime story, it is insufficient. There is an excessive amount of vulgarity, with a good half of it being unnecessary. The plot is far-fetched – tough guys, tough lines, shootings every day – just a normal day in the big city. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but this is really overdone and off-putting. For fans, it may be an entertaining film that shows Scorsese makes movies for fun and doesn't worry too much about it, but for the overwhelming majority of rational-minded laypeople, it's just a typical American hyped-up ride without a trace of real subtext. And the Oscar “for merits” is quite laughable considering the previous works of the famous film connoisseur.

Pleasant and undemanding old-school entertainment with a phenomenal cinematographer and an equally talented composer. The direction is not that important. All the benefits are provided by the captivating natural scenery, rawness, and two incredibly charismatic protagonists – Liam Neeson, in particular, is perfect in the role of a former soldier – and they have another asset: the ambiguity of their characters. Not even the most attentive viewer can honestly say which one is bad and which one is good, or who deserves to win. Both of them are tough, ruthless, and have good reasons for it. The attempt at mystery in the ending can be overlooked, although I personally didn’t like it in such a realistic story. And the ending? Probably the most reasonable outcome, even though somewhat soft.