lamps

True, the sequel is better than the lacklustre original in almost every respect, but that still doesn't make it a film worthy of textbook analysis and endless admiration. Some scenes lack a certain dramatic lightness, the atmosphere is, with all due respect, not very horror-like, and Karloff's monster is far and wide the only character who can evoke emotion and complicity. And yet, as a look back at the early sound film era and other filmmaking priorities, Bride of Frankenstein still has its undeniable charm, and certain passages, such as the poignant scenes with the blind man or the romantic-action ending, could not have been filmed better. And the good impression is also helped by the short runtime, which basically keeps the ambitions of the film only within the limits of classic, unpretentious and, by today's standards, very clever entertainment. That's all I wanted from this legend. 80%

In short, typical Allen. A film seemingly about nothing, and noticeably weaker and less entertaining than the similarly focused Annie Hall, but so good and relaxing to watch nonetheless. A caress to the soul in the form of a charming black-and-white production design, excellent background music, incredibly real and funny dialogues and above all likeable actors. For New Yorkers, this must be very close to the heart. 80%

But it's a very strong 3*. The reviews had made me expect a mixture of disgusting and vulgar jokes, which is what I got, but in such a novel and original way that I laughed out loud and often. I find it hilarious that all those filthy MacFarlane sins were coming out of the mouths of so many A-list actors, not to mention how deadly serious or endearingly insane they could look while doing it. But not to spoil the script too much, some of the jokes are really excellent and the overall "promotion" of the Wild West, where everything smells bad and even a visit to the fair is a deadly dangerous affair, also won my warm sympathy. Towards the end, MacFarlane slowly loses his breath, but he still has the backing of both the over-the-top Charlize Theron, who’s as lovely and energetic as ever, and also Liam Neeson, who plays the bad guy with clear gusto. But if there's one thing this film really deserves the audience's attention for, it's the absolutely perfect cameos – for example, the scene after the credits (specifically after "THE END") has never amused me so much. The 4* are hanging in the air, we’ll see next time. 70%

I will be nasty. If it weren't for a man as respected as Pfister behind the camera and a large cast of otherwise shining acting stars parading in front of it, perhaps I would have rated it better. However, when such an ambitious and grandiose story voluntarily and repeatedly mocks my limited intelligence while saying “You'll catch up anyway, I'm made in Hollywood”, I really have no problem stomping on it and flushing it down the drain. It's not so bad, of course, that I would walk away annoyed halfway through, and if you can get past some heavy story nonsense, the first two acts can be considered pretty decent conversational sci-fi with an uninspired plot. However, what happens at the end is an insult to everyone who’s not watching the film just because Johnny looks so dashing even in his 50s. And I’m really surprised that Depp went for it given his experience; he has never portrayed such a poor character, one who, despite being the most important and mysterious in the story, doesn't know what he wants to achieve. And so is the rest of the film, it doesn't look bad and it looks professional, but inside it's completely empty and severely uninteresting. Like a paradox, right Mr Nolan? 50%

A shining proof of what a great and unparalleled craftsman Hitch was in his time. Who else could have made such a formal impression in the space of a single medium-sized flat in 1948? Not only the original work with editing, when a scene is momentarily interrupted by a camera run directly into the tuxedo of one of the characters, after which everything continues seemingly without interruption, but also the level of lighting and colour with a bit of exaggeration are breathtaking. The script may not be quite as tight as in Dial M for Murder, and the characters certainly could (and should) have behaved better, but with 80 minutes of precise direction and Stewart's excellent performance, that doesn't have the slightest possibility to significantly spoil it. Hats off... 85%

I don't like to link to someone else’s review, but Lima really nailed it this time. :-) Otherwise, as for my opinion, I can't but praise. Scorsese is a master filmmaker who could have sensitively and engagingly filmed perhaps Saddam Hussain's childhood, and the soundtrack by Philip Glass is simply phenomenal. And most importantly, the film is utterly engrossing, fully narrating a historical stage in the span of some twelve years without exceeding the two-hour runtime – call it what you will, but I call it art. 90%

Prison Break French style, and incredibly realistic. The intimate narrative may be as cold as a penguin’s butt, and the supporting characters seem like mere necessary backdrops in their behaviour and speech, but as a depiction of real, depressing events I believed it. Sometimes there is strength in simplicity, and this classic film, although not among the most typical representatives of this saying, is an example of it. 70%

Once upon a time there were two Italians who already knew each other well and whose collaboration was apparently a fateful affair. One of them had no problem writing six hundred pages with detailed descriptions of individual scenes and even the actors' movements, so that the visual and narrative aspects of his upcoming project would not contain a single flaw. The other, for his part, reached to the bottom of his musical talent and wrung from it a repertoire of the most breathtaking melodies that not only chill throughout the film, but above all elevate the story of a classic western with taciturn characters into the realm of the most admired and unsurpassed cinematic art. Then there was one beautiful Italian woman, who only had to stand still in front of the camera to the accompaniment of majestic music, to provide an unprecedented, almost soulful experience. And then there were three very charismatic Americans, whose interactions and intrigues seem to get more subtle and spectacular with each viewing, making any other western become mediocre in comparison. Well, this wild bunch is behind the creation of a groundbreaking film that not only changed the look of modern westerns, relegated the old ones to a worn-out commodity and set an unbeatable bar for upcoming ones, but most importantly, it prepared for me such an exotic and untold delicacy that after each new bite I get even hungrier and ask myself if it is even possible to digest and absorb all these different tastes in one sitting. But I won't know unless I taste it again and again... 100%

A waste of talent. Normally I would have thought that a serious satire containing themes of murder and tragic love would flourish in Allen's hands as much as a futuristic sci-fi or romantic comedy, but the story is full of empty dialogue and descends into a whirlwind of philosophical drivel that doesn't fit the whole at all. I appreciate what Allen is trying to convey, but I’ve never seen him this boring before. And not even all those great actors can change that. 60%

Let's face it, we haven’t had such a monstrously entertaining, straightforward and at the same time creatively constructed action flick for a very long time, and it would be a big mistake to denigrate its quality just because it fails badly in a number of major or minor story details. But there are. On the one hand, we have the cookie-cutter and predictable characters that seem downright unrealistic (the good-hearted and brave hero, the cold and rational big boss and his strong-willed and impulsive nephew, the corrupt cop, etc. ), and then there’s also the incomprehensible aversion of all of them to firearms, which would have ended the story at around the 60th minute (but we would have missed a lot, so I forgive that). Not to mention that, due to the sometimes overly polished stylization, even the basic emotions that the subplot with the abandoned family, for example, tries to convey don't really work – by far the most emotional moment is the execution of the faithful "cleaner", which is brilliantly edited and scored. Otherwise, leaving aside the fact that the ideal of an action detective story for me is the diametrically opposed and realistic Fierce Duel, I have nothing to complain about. The Raid 2 does not require you to think, only to have a keen eye, keen ears and 150 minutes of excess time, which in this case even a person who falls asleep while skydiving would have no problem getting through. And I want more! 85%