Lima

The question is what you expect from a filmmaker of Scorsese's calibre: a disposable product or something that will last for ages and that you will love to come back to. I expected the latter, but got the former. The product comes in an attractive package, the production design is meticulously detailed, there are dozens of extras in front of the camera in most shots, and the 100 million budget is palpable. Scorsese artfully inserts shots of period illustrations into the plot, which positively highlight the atmosphere of 19th century New York. The actors, Caprio and Diaz are excellent, but above them all looms the demonic Day Lewis with his artificial eye, you wouldn’t want to mess with him. The story: that’s were they dropped the ball. Gangs of New York is a portrait of an era that doesn’t go deep. The first two acts run like clockwork, but after a plot twist in the last act, the whole narrative goes haywire leading to a completely chaotic ending. The question is who is the culprit, the frequent reshoots or the bad script. I often like to return to Scorsese's films, such as The Last Temptation of Christ or Taxi Driver, as true art with profound content. Unfortunately, there’s no chance of that in this case. Overall, I'd say it's about a three-and-a-half-star film, but the actors give it their all and my respect for the Master is still high.

The love scene with the couple by the waterfalls looks like a Nivea commercial. During the battle in the arena, the Jedi look so bored with their lightsabers that I keep waiting for them to roll a joint. The final battle is a massive mess. Add to that directorial shortcomings such as the final chase, in which Padmé falls out of a flying machine, drops from a great height to the ground and, as if in a last ditch effort, shakes her legs like a beetle, gets back on her feet like nothing happened and starts giving orders. There is no point in going on about other lapses, there are plenty of them. Lucas wanted to pay homage to everyone: Beverly Hills 90210, Gladiator, Chaplin's Modern Times, Blade Runner – it's all here. Unfortunately. But this is still Star Wars, and as the episodes roll in, this new coat of the magic that I love so much from the original trilogy takes on a new look.

Not so much science fiction as a realistic picture of our world facing a threat that could very well happen in real life. What happened at the beginning of the 20th century in Siberia, when a small asteroid with the power of several atomic bombs struck our planet, may well affect another part of the world in a few years on a much larger and catastrophic scale for life on earth, and this is exactly what this film is about. Unfortunately, the inhospitable universe is not conducive to life, and it's good to know that, or make a movie about it, which is, unfortunately, all we can do. Or to colonise other planets as an insurance policy for the preservation of the human race, but that would be getting really into science fiction, though movies about it would be awesome too. Deep Impact 2 to 10 :) But back to the film. I’m giving it four stars grinding my teeth, and I’m willing to ignore the ridiculous scene of the landing on the asteroid.

The only film adaptation of Swift's novel that covers it in its entirety. Not only the audience's gratifying Lilliputania, but also the rest of the novel – the land of giants, the wise men, etc – and that deserves praise. Ted Danson as Gulliver is alright, and the visual effects are top notch considering the budget. Although the story does not avoid some traditional Hollywood tropes, especially at the end, it is a decent film.

A template rehearsed a thousand times, only that the mutated beasts has been replaced by a natural phenomenon. The script is full of clichés, the resolution of Helen Hunt's emotional problems did not interest me, but the amazing visual effects (for the time) save the day. Three points for the tornado and another one for the flying cow :)

Stalin was known to be a bloody beast, but this film is too nice on him. No, it doesn't romanticize him in any way, but the reality was much, much worse and bloodier, and the filmmakers could have gone a bit further. On the other hand, Robert Duvall as Stalin is flawless, like two peas in a pod.

An exhibition of visual effects by ILM interspersed with reflections on the meaning of life and the need for love. Two storylines: the wanderings of Robin Williams mixed with memories of his wife. Both are alright, but they don’t work very well together. My impression overall is rather mixed, but it’s certainly an original film.

A loose sequence of unconnected short stories, some of which are quite good, some of which are terrible. Francis Ford Coppola’s in particular is among the latter. Overall, it’s weak.

Pierre Richard is the toy of the son of an executive in a tragicomic story with a social-critical background. No, that sounds bad, let me try again. It’s Richard’s best film. Yeah, that’s better. An amusing reflection on whether money can buy everything, including human dignity. And can it really? Watch this film and see for yourselves, it’s worth it.

The clash of opposites of hardass-loser works flawlessly and the viewer is thoroughly entertained. Some scenes are weaker (the allergic reaction and the one with the gorilla), but the ending with the broken footbridge is absolutely brilliant.