lamps

If it wasn't for the last ten minutes, which heavily disrupt the characteristic signature of the narrative, it would be worthy of pure 5*. A confidently directed old-school downer with fantastic sound and precise acting that rides the wave of pure genre in the form of psychological mystery horror for most of its runtime, and a delicate performance by John Goodman, whose volatile character sparks more suffocating tension than the vast majority of today's horror stuff. The information of the plot is incomplete, but that's perfectly fine – in any given situation, no one is sure what's really going on or who the other person is, and so is the fear and growing paranoia of the viewer, making them much more engulfed in an atmosphere of uncertainty. Great work with visual details and hints and imaginative direction that keeps the tension steady and serves up surprising twists in a very raw, intense way. As I mentioned, the climax comes ten minutes before the end, and I think it’s a bit unfortunate that a such a subtle film that so cleverly lets the viewer be unnerved by their own imagination, in the end, switches to a tired popcorn flick, forcibly bolted onto the diametrically opposed Cloverfield. 85%

Twists and turns like in Czech politics, a mangled penis and Rachel Leigh Cook's bouncing breasts. No one paid much attention to the logic, but the above, together with the endearing naivety with which this sort of story is put together, doesn't allow me to go below an average 3*. The sex scene in the graveyard is awesome.

A very suggestive and unpleasant film, which probably cannot be faulted too much within the director's vision. There were moments when I was bored, and overall, 127 Hours didn't blow me away, but at least for the final act, for James Franco and for the very original and bold execution I can't go below 4*...

I didn’t expect it, but the result was superb. It was incredibly interesting to look into the minds of twelve absolutely ordinary people, to see how they gradually change their opinions and how they hold the fate of the accused boy in their hands. I have the feeling that even if the film had lasted an hour longer, it wouldn't have lost any of its quality and the actors would still have kept the viewer engaged with more great dialogue. If anyone has any prejudice about this film, perhaps because of its age, don't let it fool you and give 12 Angry Men a watch. It’s a brilliant piece of work, and not only in terms of filmmaking.

Fantastic production design and performances in a boilerplate story where all the star cameos serve the sole purpose of making the viewer understand that racism is just evil and that even the people in question loudly disagree with it. The only load-bearing characters thus become the suffering Ejiofor and the awful master Fassbender, whose attempt at a more hearty psychology is obvious but sadly unsuccessful, holding the emotional raft on mere innate empathetic values – had he broken out of the "just plain evil" box and played a more original game with the downtrodden, the impact would have been many times stronger. Still, it's undoubtedly a polished piece of filmmaking that reflects the ugly spirit of a racist time very faithfully and authentically – but we certainly expected more from McQueen.

Michael Bay is a commercial filmmaker with a great grasp of basic genre scales and practices, but he cannot naturalise all the events, including the action sequences, and give them a fatal, physically painful feel. 13 Hours is a prototype of a good action flick, but it desperately lacks any innovative impulse that would elevate it to the category of excellent – the protagonist is presented using the most profane clichés and his only motivation is traditionally to return to his wife and small daughters, while the other players in the story are nothing but passer-bys, hard to tell from one another thanks to identical physical parameters in the action turmoil. The basic plot is plumped up by the annoying figure of the irrational boss, who only acts expediently to further escalate the situation, and finally the action itself doesn't make you completely surrender to it and forget everything else. We can praise the fast pace, thanks to which the runtime doesn't feel excessive, and the opening documentary passage and the related depiction of Benghazi as a real hell on earth, where killing is the order of the day. It's a more sincere and effective film than the disparate Pearl Harbor, but still too contrived and lacking in intensity, a stale looser compared to Black Hawk Down. 60%

A bit of a naive ghost story, the kind of which there have been many. And even though John Cusack is playing for dear life and all that fear is palpable, my adrenaline level didn't rise an inch during his growing madness. Besides, the filmmakers didn't know where to go and resorted to more and more obvious twists and turns, almost crossing the boundary of kitsch several times. On the other hand, they came up with a very interesting ending, which was certainly not very shocking, but it surprised me. A decent 3* for the effort, the actors and the decent atmosphere.

I don't understand why I let this film slip through my fingers for so long. It’s an amazing experience, the likes of which you just don't see. Ridley is an incredibly complex and perfectionist filmmaker able to caress you with literally every shot and can present even a seemingly boring and verbose passage in a spectacular and captivating way. Here he is greatly assisted by the great Depardieu, who was perfect for the role of Columbus, and also by Vangelis at the peak of his career, who spits out one beautiful musical motif after another. The slow pace suits Ridley and he knows how to work with it perfectly, the beautiful setting and the production design are pleasing to the eye of every viewer, and the big theme of the clash of ideas with a completely different world adds to the monumentality and epicness of the film as a whole. Two and a half hours is a pretty brutal runtime, but I enjoyed it as much as any other director (and composer) could have with this story. 85%

A magnificent way of fooling the viewer, but I didn’t buy it. All that demanding work that can be seen on the authenticity of the sets and the hundreds of extras, whose movements Mendes had to plan in detail, and certainly deserves praise. But an educational rebuke is also warranted, because, apart from the visuals, watching the endless movement of the camera leaves the impression that the director only stood behind the camera, praising his own vision, without considering whether all that exhibition makes any sense and has a solid justification. The opening long shot has a purely following character, this means that the movement of the camera is activated and subject to the movement of the characters; it never moves away from them, breathing over their shoulders, or at most goes around them a couple of times, letting them go over an obstacle from the other side in order to allow for an invisible cut. Such a staging demands a lot of work and supports the subjective experience of the horrors of war, but after a few minutes I started asking myself “is that all?”. Deakins’s work is impressive, with spectacular angles and camera positions that are in perfect harmony with the intense lightning, always giving the impression that the camera is actually directing the film, but in this case he was very likely replaced most of the time by a younger assistant running before or behind the characters, and the movements in front of the camera become tiring and unimaginative after a while, sometimes to the point that, rather than obediently following the action, it’s more fun to find where they may have cut; a process that they quite managed to hide at the level of noticing the editing, but that it’s unfortunately reflected on the movements of the characters and the camera, with obstacles and human protagonists appearing with a mandatory regularity that is often not justified by the development of the plot. And in fact, another one of the questionably resolved elements is the logical unfolding on the plot and its relation to space-time. The continuous shot and the purely subjective character of the narration make it impossible to move away from some unimportant segments, which is of course intentional, the messengers are pressed for time and every second counts, but it ends up affecting the internal organisation and the logic of that world. For example, when the protagonists receive their important mission, they are told that the place where they have to deliver the message is at least six hours away by foot, how is it possible then that one of them manages to crawl, stumble and run there within the runtime of the film (plus one visible cut when the protagonist passes out and wakes up after a certain time)? And personally I didn’t understand why in the second half the narration makes unnecessary stops (must every war movie have a scene with an innocent terrified civilian and a small child?) and why the protagonist makes certain stupid decisions that puts him in unnecessary danger (the scene with the drunk German). But I don’t want to only criticise the concept, there are certain dramatic moments that work very well and strike the viewer in the head, and the sequence in the burning town is amazing, exactly in the style of the Deakins and Mendes at their best in the ending of Skyfall. Once again, however, it is self-evident to argue that a deliberate blend of naturalistic scenes that aim to draw the attention in a minimalistic way with epic and ballad-like ones like from Tarkovsky is pretty much out of the question – if they’ve already went for no cuts for the sake of greater authenticity, why didn’t the go without music, too? (The music is beautiful, but it pulls the viewer out of the desired trance.) Despite the media hype and its crazy desire to be ground-breaking, this film is only artificially impressive and a tedious running around in circles, rather than an effectively constructed drama with a concept that could defend and justify a weak story with a predictable outcome. On the one hand, I realised that tension can be pinned even without cuts, but the realisation that prevails is that endlessly following two characters, even under the best production and technical conditions, will make attention waver after some time and that cuts are actually necessary in order to maintain the coherence of a fictional world and the logic of the narration, unless the filmmaker has an enormous visionary scope, which is something 1917 doesn’t have, even though many people will blindly say so. 55%

There’s no point writing anything. Space Odyssey is insanely underrated, because its genius and timelessness lies in the fact that it laughs at common genre conventions in a way most of us regular folks will never allow, which is the very reason why I adore it. If we were trying to defend film as true art (which we certainly want to do), we should use Kubrick's masterpiece as an example. Welles may have his Citizen Kane, Fritz his Metropolis, and Coppola his flawless The Godfather..., but this is the only film that manages to evoke unadulterated viewer ecstasy and a sense of amazement through the imaginative use of basic filmmaking devices such as music, cinematography, sets, and now a dose of high quality visual effects (which are, by the way, utterly captivating for their time). Strauss's Waltz seems to have been composed just to underscore the amazing harmony of the weightless state, and the universe seems to really exist for the sole purpose of allowing Clarke and Kubrick to think about it and create their own and, in terms of filmmaking, the most epic human vision in history, in space, time and thought – at least that’s how I felt during those 140 minutes, although that big message doesn't seem incomprehensible after two screenings (unless I'm terribly mistaken, which perhaps the next screening will reveal). What I've realised for sure, though, is that the HAL computer is a beautiful caricature of Kubrick's work – except that Stanley never makes a mistake.