POMO

After its cool reception in the US, I found this movie a pleasant surprise. It does not deal with Jobs’ private life, but with his role in Apple’s establishment and the first phase of the company’s existence. It delves into his personal life only marginally, for a quick outline of his character by showing his approach to unexpected life events (which he did not address in an exactly typical manner). The main focus of the narrative is his approach to professional events: his passion for his work and adamant belief in his vision. This, along with the profound ideas he continually expresses, makes this film inspiring and energetic; something that can give you a nudge in the right direction. Plus, it shows “how it really happened”, which will be relatable to all ambitious garage-based startup founders, who also struggle with their creativity being misunderstood by profit-seeking investors. Jobs is a pleasant and useful little film on the level of the “TVlike” Hitchcock, but of course it’s not as good as The Social Network, which is more refined in its screenplay and direction. Ashton Kutcher’s good. The fourth star in my rating is purely personal – I understood his every decision, urge and move, and even the glass table in his office was similar to mine. :-)

A case of cinematic megalomania that is not self-serving and over the top, but is the very essence of the target concept, the blood in the heart of the film. A simple storytelling template, perfect visual effects and super-cool action scenes (Hong Kong Harbor rules), redesigned visuals of mecha-robots and sea monsters. Astonishment over the epic power of the opponents (the Japanese will piss their pants). Plus Guillermo del Toro-like enthusiasm for slime, skin parasites and Ron Perlman. The characters and their interaction, however, are not too impressive and the dinosaur idea is very contrived. That’s a pity. The 3D is better than usual (but still only converted from 2D in post-production). I wonder whether it’s a coincidence that the mad scientist looks exactly like J.J. Abrams.

A Hijacking is authentic, sober and well played. But it lacks more dramatic moments, and some scenes slow it down unnecessarily, while others that are needed to complete the story context are missing. We could learn more about the cook’s family and, most importantly, the CEO was supposed to discuss the ransom amount with shareholders when they were so proactive that they wanted to replace him due to lengthy negotiations. Let’s see what Paul Greengrass can think up with Tom Hanks on board.

Don’t expect an adventurous eye-candy epic like John Woo’s Red Cliff. Here the characters speak cryptically about political contexts that the ordinary viewer cannot understand. The film leaps through historical periods, exchanging characters around the central couple, and relating to anyone’s drama or understanding the meaning of their journey is for invited guests only (among whom I am not). It can’t be compared to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, where we had three characters, a subtle depiction of their relationships, a slow, poetic narrative, and the irresistible, exotic magic of the Far East. The Grandmaster is completely different. But as always with Kar-wai Wong, it has excellent music (I appreciated the variation on Ennio Morricone’s motif from Once Upon a Time in America at the end) and decent fight scenes.

Episodes from the life of Roman high society, which in themselves are filmmaking glamor. The Great Beauty is a visual gem, abstract not only in its image, but also in terms of content. It’s not possible to absorb it all in a single viewing, as the sheer number of thoughts and reflections requires watching it again. And even if you still don’t absorb them all, you will remain dazzled by the atmosphere and elegance of the film, touched by the harmony between the camerawork and editing, which is simply incredible. Paolo Sorrentino is from outer space. The disco party at the beginning of The Great Beauty beats the entire Great Gatsby.

"Kill Bill 3: Kill the Priest", or a French conclusion of Tarantino’s trilogy comprising Inglourious Basterds - Django Unchained - ???. In the Name of the Son is a bold and cynical farce about deadly serious matters. It is a film you certainly didn’t expect, but you’re glad it exists.

A million-dollar idea set on a picturesque Croatian coast. Sunny exteriors, a relaxing atmosphere conveyed in a fresh Balkan manner, comical characters, humor of both a plebeian and intelligent nature (great jabs at the Church). A perfect break from super-serious festival dramas, as well as tasteful and at a high filmmaking level.

It’s as if Michael Haneke (again driven by the need to explore human dignity) tried his hand at staging in front of the camera – without the need to provide the viewer with a coherent story. Code Unknown is a chronologically scattered mosaic of excerpts from the stories of a group of people who have affected each other’s lives. Watching the characters’ behavior in long shots with no music. There are a few great scenes that make you bate your breath and a few scenes whose absence would make the film more compact, easier to understand and more emotionally engaging. For Haneke’s fans, it is material for hours of discussions. Juliette Binoche is excellent.

Ben Wheatley and his friends grabbed some historical costumes and a big fan, went to a field, ate some ‘shrooms and made a black-and-white independent movie. The question of “is it me or is this film crazy?” is answered about two-thirds of the way into it.

This seemingly banal story (with a tragic ending) is based on real events from the life of an ordinary African-American and his family. It is, however, rendered in such quality that it will touch your heart and bring tears to your eyes. Michael B. Jordan's acting and Ryan Coogler's directing are both outstanding.