Kaka

It’s probably true, Ridley Scott, is getting better the older he gets. He’s directing even stronger stories than in the past, but just as visually brilliant, and the actors in them play fantastically – better than ever before. One would expect that at his age he would only enjoy making movies and shoot easygoing films like A Good Year, but that's not the case. Scott is fiercely pursuing success, he’s still as enthusiastic about filmmaking as before, and thanks to this spirit, he was able to make a thrilling and intense film like American Gangster. Fantastic in terms of acting (Denzel Washington is magnificent), visually brilliant (cinematography, editing) and in terms of the production design and complex depiction of the 1970s in the American metropolis, it is hard to beat. It’s not a better film than Goodfellas (slower pace), but in the current times of garbage in the sewage, it is a clean, winding and proud bandage on the cinematography of commercial Hollywood. After the second and third screening, one of the best gangster movies ever. Better, more compact and with a bigger heart than Goodfellas. Josh Brolin is awesome and so is Washington.

Stephen Hopkins has unfortunately withered away similarly to John McTiernan, for example. There were times when he was able to direct thrilling films like Predator 2, or even better adventures like The Ghost and the Darkness. Unfortunately, time passes faster than one would want, and since then, he has obviously forgotten how to make a quality film. In terms of atmosphere, The Reaping is relatively decent, but the well-built story structure turns into something indescribably silly and pompous in the second half, with several interesting sequences completely wasted. I don't understand what a talented actress like Hilary Swank is doing here, and David Morrissey's character is nothing special, either. His role in the finale is the essence of idiocy, even someone after lobotomy would understand that something isn't right half an hour before the end.

The first film had heart, the second was empty, but its formal style was excellent and, with the help of the same ensemble, a quality musical score, and meticulously crafted details, it was still relatively watchable. The third one is the worst. It's not as big of a leap as between the first and second parts, but Danny Ocean's team is really struggling for the third time. The new face in the form of Al Pacino is definitely a plus, but this time the plot is even more convoluted and relatively unexciting and sterile, which is a big minus. Even the formal aspect is not as interesting as before. For fans of gentlemen in Armani suits, with gold rings on their fingers and big wads of banknotes in their wallets, it's a watchable and very average. For everyone else, it's already a quite worn out and exhausting rollercoaster ride that runs out of steam even while putting together the unbeatable heist plan.

Questionable in every possible direction. At its core, The Fountain can be a simple and straightforward film, it doesn't need any hidden and shocking twist, but getting through its hard and intellectually difficult shell was beyond my abilities. Rachel Weisz is only here for decoration and all the acting skills are demonstrated solely by Hugh Jackman, who delivers the best performance of his career so far. Throughout the entire 96 minutes, he is literally filled with emotions, something that cannot be said about the film. Touching and personal passages are followed by heavily uninteresting and deafening “WTF” scenes, during which you can hardly believe what is actually happening. In terms of visuals, it’s definitely immensely interesting, but plot-wise it’s quite confusing (the question is whether intentionally), and in terms of whether the film expresses something, it’s hard to describe. I am of the opinion that Aronofsky has prepared a confusing mix of philosophizing, an equation without a precise result, letting the viewers, take whatever they deem appropriate. Some are enthusiastic about the outcome, others disappointed.

The hard-hitting dialogues unfortunately do not make up for the insanely sentimental backbone of the film, which is cynical to the point of woe. The characters are flat and simple, everything is superficial without any believability or realism. Throughout the film, Mimi Leder presents us with a fairytale story about a good boy, whose final act forces the viewer to shed a tear. I can imagine the sweaty director behind the camera trying to shoot some scenes with the highest possible dose of tearfulness, that's how it looks according to the final product. It's not completely bad and the script initially has a relatively interesting storyline. Unfortunately, it becomes increasingly clichéd and tearjerking. About eighty percent insincere.

A much more sincere and stronger war film than the tearful and extremely pathetic Flags of Our Fathers. Clint Eastwood really stepped up his game in the second film, which, in contrast, shows the conflict from the other side and tells an excellent story full of Japanese traditions, customs, and tactics. How accurately it reflects reality can only be judged by eyewitnesses and war experts, but I dare say that the film was presented to the audience in a very bearable way. Thank God it doesn't just show the Japanese as suicidal lunatics and heartless killing machines, but also portrays them nicely from the other side right from the beginning. From young boys separated from their families to high-ranking officers with connections to the West, who are willing to proudly sacrifice their lives for their country. Watanabe is excellent, the action is decent and the non-combat scenes are very impressive. This solid film is worth watching if inly for the fact that we may have the opportunity to see a comprehensive view of an event in the war from this different and culturally distinct perspective, despite some minor flaws and a slightly excessive runtime (or rather, some unnecessary scenes).

With the passage of time, it is increasingly evident that the sequel to the famous predecessor is essentially running on fumes. In the first film, the Predator was excellently outlined, but here we don’t learn anything new (and the ending doesn't say much). In addition, there are several technical and narrative mistakes and shortcomings that overall detract from an otherwise decent impression. Some scenes are, of course, impressive (the subway, the slaughterhouse), but otherwise, it is essentially a forced sequel that was mainly meant to attract fans of the monster to the cinemas. Arnie is sorely missed, Danny Glover the necessary charisma. The Predator's weapons are cool, but otherwise, his journey to the city didn't do him much good.

First-class and now deservedly legendary action movie, whose director managed to get the most out of the minimum. But that was back when John McTiernan still had form and didn't direct nonsense like his last few outputs. Predator has all the attributes that a proper action movie should have: tough heroes, a merciless killer, gripping atmosphere, excellent use of the harsh nature, which with the help of solid camera work often instills fear even without the direct presence of the hunter. And last but not least, there is also the great Arnold, who is tougher than the whole terrorist camp combined. A milestone that became a classic of its kind a long time ago.

Thematically, it’s a very interesting and relatively fresh thriller, but it can confuse to death the average viewer ignorant of the local oil battle, and therefore the main. The plot structure is complicated, the intertwining of several stories is veiled, and navigating through them is an extremely difficult nut to crack. I see that as the most fundamental flaw of the film. The screenwriter should be aware that the majority of people are not involved in the oil industry, so they simply do not know, do not understand and cannot keep up, and the total mess the names is just an additional bonus. A bit more clarity and explanations, a bit less gas and some additional emotions, and it could have been a top-notch political thriller. Like this, it is a smart and unnecessarily complex film with a much simpler core, which is as dry as a hundred-year-old whiskey. Minimalist music and a few raw scenes do not make a good film either.

Clint Eastwood is strongly off-topic in the war theme, instead of the dynamic friendship of young boys, he presents us with a tearful story about one significant photo and the completely uninteresting wrangling around it. The relatively significant departure from the war theme itself – that is, the fights, or America good, Germany/Japan bad – can be considered an interesting idea. The financial flows and the distortion of the national economy during wartime are lightly outlined, so the viewer is not only forced to count body. There is action, of course, but it lacks the rawness of Saving Private Ryan. There are novel views from the cockpits of fighter planes that catch attention, a slightly more detailed look at the weapons or tactics of the enemy, and magnificent scenes of the island being bombarded by battleships. The landing scenes are not as impressive, and it’s clear Eastwood is an old man, it’s missing speed. Overall, it is rather an average attempt to look at a military conflict from a slightly different perspective. The idea is good, but somewhat halfway through completion.