Lima

I'd like to write that Lost is a drug with opposite effects: the more you take, the less you like it. The cleverness of Season 1 and its perfectly paced conclusion (the cliffhanger in the last episode) is replaced by the muddled mush of the first half of Season 2, which you can only enjoy if you have a certain level of tolerance for the acting of the guy in the Michelle Rodriguez skirt and are able to accept that the centre of all the action is pushing a button. Certainly the quality of the individual episodes is also directly proportional to the appeal of the flashbacks, with Sawyer clearly having the best, together with John Locke’s his much-maligned "kidney problem", with Boone and Shannon and Charlie and his desperate DriveShaft at the opposite pole. In the current 3rd season, the so-called "bubblegum effect" (i.e. what could be told in half an hour is stretched to 6 episodes, the 3rd episode "Further Instructions" is an example of a complete screenwriting collapse) comes into play, with very effective, but somewhat stupid crutches to dramatize the plot (Sawyer's "implant"). Plus, the way the showrunners have branched out the plot to an unsuspected breadth and brought in a bunch of other big questions (and haven't answered any of them yet), I kind of feel like they have put themselves into a corner. I'm genuinely curious to see how the whole mystery will be solved; either we're looking at one of the biggest duds in the history of television in a few years, or, on the contrary, we’ll see that the Abrams team has created one of the most interesting series of the last decade. The frantic tweaking of the script over the last winter does not inspire much confidence so far. The reasons why I give it a cautious and very weak 4* are as follows: firstly, despite all my qualms, Lost still retains a kind of compelling mystery and manages to surprise. The second reason is the interesting characters free from the black and white concept – especially the extremely charismatic John Locke, the ambiguous rogue Sawyer, or the mysterious Henry. For now we can only say "we'll see, we'll see", there is still plenty of time for a conclusive assessment.

BIKINI KOMBAT!!! Baywatch meets The Shaw Brothers and the result is a 100% brainless affair that redefines the term "shit" and becomes a hot candidate for inclusion in www.badmovies.org. Unfortunately, the overly dense frequency of brawls makes DOA a rather monotonous affair as time goes on. I enjoyed it's stepsibling, Paul W.S. Anderson's visually much more sophisticated Mortal Kombat (Anderson co-produced DOA), infinitely more, even though it was really about the same thing.

Visually, there is nothing to complain about. Every dollar of the 100 million budget is visible in the generous production design, Zwick is very good at action scenes, the two key ones, the massacre in Freetown and the attack on the RUF camp, are examples of great filmmaking. But the film fails in the story, which is an amalgamation of a poor attempt at some kind of overarching idea pointing out the pains of contemporary Africa, and a completely bland plot. It’s written according to the tried-and-tested formula of mainstream Hollywood productions, with a predictable plot and a lot of clichés, including a cheesy final phone call that definitely left my eyes dry. This is also because the script gives very little space to the emotional tension between Archer and Maddy, whose tears – thrill me, kill me – I simply didn't believe, and even the strong scenes (the training of small RUF adepts) get completely lost among the plot ballast. There was no deep lasting experience, only "watch it and forget after a while". Otherwise, Djimon Hounson's expressive performance was once again a pleasure, DiCaprio has finally manned up and stole some scenes (I could feel his suppressed anger at Hounson during a great scene with a hunted baboon) and his work with a machine gun during the attack on the RUF camp would be appreciated even by John Rambo :)

After the extremely underrated The Village, another great effort by Mr.Shaymalan, where I felt a film moving away from mainstream audiences, which I applaud. As with the previous film, a wonderfully atmospheric affair with a great Howard score, some strong moments and Giamatti definitely going into my acting top ten. If you hated the twist of The Village (which was not the point of the film, no matter what anyone says), you will not find anything similar here. Shyamalan has abandoned his traditional trademark of surprising final twists (unless you count the reveal of "The Guardian"), but from the start he develops an original fairy-tale mythology that makes this film at times what one might call "strange" but intriguing. It's impeccable to discuss with equally afflicted film buffs and loses nothing with a second viewing. So, I say, carry on Mr Shyamalan and next time you’ll get 5*. I just hope he won't be deterred from further work by the not-so-favorable response from audiences and film critics (you can do it, Shy, you send the Skrunts after them and it'll be fine).

The last (I hope) Rocky doesn't surprise with anything, the story is again simple and straightforward, with a pinch of combat adrenaline, and life wisdoms that sound out of Harlequin books, some of which caressed the soul. Rocky's final farewell to the audience in the boxing ring (and symbolically, Sly's farewell to this character, which suddenly catapulted him to the cinematic Olympus) left me surprisingly cold, but there’s no denying that it is a worthy farewell. Mainly because there is no lack of insight, Stallone faces the advancing years head on and occasionally throws down some nice and funny lines. In short, Sly made me happy. The film is worth 3 stars, the fourth one is thrown in for nostalgia’s sake, which Sly enlivened with several functional short flashbacks. And why not admit it, I have a soft spot for this hard-working "Italian Stallion".

I wouldn't have expected such a bland performance from Norton (another Italian Job?), and maybe he didn't even know what ear-splitting lines the script would force him to let out of his mouth. The only thing that keeps this below-average fable afloat, with the look of a slightly more expensive TV production, is the great (and better from film to film) Giammatti, while the final Shyamalan-like twist stands on very shaky legs. And I might rename the whole film to "Hologram Man" – Eisenheim's stunts in the second half were closer to science fiction than to illusory shenanigans (nasty nitwit Lima).

Mitchum's absolutely delicious, characteristically ambiguous Dr.March is great – cynical and almost reprehensible in his relationship with his wife. On the other hand, his correct and almost fanatically consistent adherence to medical ethics seemed out of this world in the context of the lax attitude of his colleagues. Such a well-written character was just a joy to watch. Add to that the enjoyable and talented Sinatra and de Havilland and a nice emotional ending, then I'll slap on a 4* without even blinking.

The atmosphere and the production design are flawless (I simply love films with this retro mood), unfortunately the story seemed too skeletal and it was even missing De Palma's visual tricks like in Snake Eyes or The Untouchables. Hartnett's sonorous, deep voice was beautifully suited to the role of the narrative guide, and at times it even seemed that De Palma had turned him into something called an "actor", but then the ghost of Gittes from the similarly tuned Chinatown appeared before my eyes and I immediately dismissed the idea. Hartnett tries, but he can't play the dark strings, he's such a "sunny boy", every moment I expected him to rip off his jacket and hat and jump on a skateboard, and that leaves the characters of actors a class better than him – Eckhart and Johansson – without much room to be more engaging. All in all, it comes out to a – forgettable – three points.

Of the many recent political dramas commenting on contemporary problems of civilization, this film is one of the best, along with Syriana. This one deals with the problems of today's Africa, with the growing influence of multinational pharmaceutical companies and the harmful interference by corrupt officials and governments in the work of NGOs. Unlike the somewhat aloof and cold Syriana, however, Meirelles's film is told more clearly (without a barrage of names) and, thanks to the big theme of love beyond the grave, is more emotional, including an impressive ending that lifted the final impression to the absolute. I didn't think Rachel Weisz's performance was Oscar-worthy, but I kept the scenes with her in front of my eyes even after the film was over. Maybe I’m in love? :)

If there's one film in the last year that I unexpectedly completely missed, it was this one. William Macy under the direction of horror personality Stuart Gordon and a screenplay from the pen of David Mamet, one of the most respected screenwriters in Hollywood today? An unusual connection...good. I was looking forward to it! And it was like a cold shower. For the first third or so, the film is kept afloat by a likeable politically incorrect approach to some of the characters and by Macy, who’s fun to watch even if he’s reading from the phone book the whole time he’s on screen. Starting with the unbelievable (in a bad way) scene between Edmond and Glenn, I stopped believing everything that happens in the story; the words “unnatural” and “unbelievable” describe it well. Whether it's the development of the main character, individual scenes that would make your toes curl, and most importantly, I haven't heard such screwed-up, unnatural dialogue in a movie in a long time, including the philosophizing of the two convicts at the very end (I really didn't know whether to laugh or cry). A 76-minute cinematic torture, perhaps misunderstood on my part, but in this case I don't regret it.