MrHlad

Princess Aurora wants to get married and Maleficent has a bit of a problem with that. One that leads to a war between humans and magical creatures! This dark fantasy sequel is just as lackluster as the first part, a CGI-packed film with a hackneyed and overly simple story that surprises with the unexpected relegation of Angelina Jolie. As an unpretentious family fantasy flick, it may hold up, but you'd look in vain for anything extra in the second Maleficient.

The Goldfinch wants to be a great story, but its creators found out too late that they couldn't cram everything into it. And yet they tried. The result is a film that wants to deal with a huge number of themes, but in the end has to deal with all of them only very superficially. It's a shame because, at least in the first half, it's a very well-made drama that also looks beautiful. The whole, however, is hardly satisfying.

Gemini Man is a strange combination of a 90s action movie with an attempt to suggest what the future of cinema might look like, and I'm not sure I like it. I didn’t mind the B-movie story, Gemini Man is still a brisk actioner and Ang Lee handles the chases, the shootouts and the one-on-one fights brilliantly, and thankfully there's not a shortage of them, so the overall goofiness and straightforwardness doesn't particularly matter (except perhaps for the boring villain). The problem I had was more with the visuals. While young Will Smith looks really great, everything else is kind of weird. Gemini Man is visually unnaturally... clean. Especially in the exteriors, it looks more like a very well done computer game animation, which unfortunately with its bold colors sometimes resembles the worst of South American soap operas. I don't know to what extent it was 3D or 120fps, but personally I found it distracting and even annoying at some points.

The autumn of film disappointments continues for me, unfortunately. If I were to take Joker as a comic book movie or even a DC movie, I would have to consider it exceptional. However, if I want to approach it as a more ambitious drama that takes the themes of madness, inability to fit into society, and human cruelty seriously, it's not so good already. Joaquin Phoenix is excellent in the lead role, especially in scenes where he can, shall we say, exhibit; when he's alone on the screen and he's just going nuts. But once he's supposed to be part of a larger story and plot, it turns out the film doesn't really have much to offer. All the twists and surprises are pretty banal and the whole descent into madness is actually terribly predictable. Joker looks great, has great music and a perfect lead actor, yet remains too ordinary and not very interesting at its core, as it just copies similar films and relies on similar techniques. Not to mention the fact that the Joker as a character is much more interesting to me as a nutter whose madness and the roots thereof cannot be defined. I find Alfred's "Some men just want to watch the world burn" from The Dark Knight more interesting as a probe into the mind of the Joker than this entire film.

It looks beautiful. Hoyte Van Hoytema deserves an Oscar, the vastness and grandeur of space is literally palpable. It's beautiful to look at, the sound design its great, and in that respect Ad Astra can easily stand alongside both Interstellar and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Unfortunately, though, the film is tripped up by its story, or rather its delivery. The plot itself, with its search for a father and other motifs, is not uninteresting, but neither is it fundamentally new or revelatory. That wouldn't be a problem, there are some questions that people will probably always ask, but James Gray seems to have no confidence in his audience and leads them by the hand unnecessarily. Instead of letting me meditate on life in the middle of infinity, he tried to serve me answers right under my nose. It was uncomfortable. It's as if Gray knew he had made an interesting and clever film, but didn't trust his audience to interpret it for themselves, so he tried to make it easy and, for my taste, unnecessarily too easy. Which, for me personally, ended up spoiling the overall experience.

Israeli agent Chris Evans and his team are determined to save Ethiopian refugees. How? They get a hotel in Sudan, look after tourists by day and help evacuate hundreds of people by night. And they know it's only a matter of time before it all goes wrong. Red Sea Diving Resort looks decent, has good actors and a reasonably interesting plot, but there's little suspense, emotion or anything to elevate it above average. There have been plenty of better films made in this genre. But there have been worse.

Grace has just got married and she realises it wasn't a good idea. Her new in-laws want to play hide-and-seek with her. If they don't find her by morning, she wins. If they find her, she'll probably die in a cruel ritual. It'll be fun. Ready or Not is a blackly humorous horror film that alternates fairly brutal scenes with a lot of gritty humour, but also some solidly suspenseful moments. It has a great main character, and the only problem in the end is that they didn't step it up a notch. As a whole, though, it's pretty good.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood may not be quite the movie for me. On the one hand, I appreciate that Quentin Tarantino can make a film that looks good, has great music, is nice to watch, and everyone who appears in front of the camera pushes themselves to the limit. In this case, however, we may not have completely met at the story. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood follows a bit in the footsteps of Inglorious Basterds, unfortunately, however, this time Tarantino is not making a variation or homage to a specific genre, but rather to a time and industry. And truthfully, I know more or less nothing about the television industry in 1960s America, and of the shows discussed here, I've heard of about one in three. Of course, I don't want to say that this is Tarantino's fault – he said himself that this film was going to be very personal to him and it shows. But in short, he's dealing with things I'm not familiar with, and frankly don't even care much about. I felt similarly "off" with his Jackie Brown years ago, because the blaxploitation subgenre didn't do anything for me either. As a result, with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I often sat in front of the screen and thought that what was going on was probably cool, it was based on something and referencing something, but since I don't know what it's referencing at all, I can't quite get into it. That's more my fault than the film itself, but the fact remains that I'll probably never watch it a second time.

Thirteen-year-old Andy has a new toy, a supermodern doll called Chucky. And Chucky's a little broken, so he starts killing people to make Andy happy. This new version of the horror classic doesn't scare too much, but it entertains with comic brutality, decent actors and a Stranger Things-style atmosphere. Nothing great, but as a horror one-off, the new Child's Play holds up.

A new version of the classic Disney story about Simba, who grew from a little lion cub into the king of animals and avenged his father's death. The new Lion King looks incredibly realistic, but the moment the animals start talking and singing, it starts to fall apart. The fairytale atmosphere where no one bothered with the chatty animals is gone, and in its new form it all feels a bit out of place. Still, it's an inoffensive adventure that will appeal to older viewers with its nostalgia and younger ones with its songs and lots of animals. But it is far from an exceptional film.