MrHlad

It's a good movie, but I won't pretend I didn't expect more. In the most tense moments, debutant Dan Trachtenberg can't be as gritty and intense as he should, and in the middle section he fails to pinch the atmosphere the way, say, John Carpenter did in The Thing. There are occasional dead moments, and by the fifth time you're figuring out what's out there, or which of the characters is a nutcase, it starts to get tedious. Never, thankfully, so that boredom sets in, and thanks to John Goodman's impecable performance and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who can do confident damsels in distress like few others, it's still a fun ride where you'll enjoy the twists and surprises. I just think it should have been made by someone who's done some movies before and knows that maintaining a suspenseful atmosphere when there are three people and four rooms on the screen doesn't quite work on its own and needs a little help.

Jon Favreau never really appealed to me as a director. Iron Man is a retrospectively weaker Marvel movie that stands and falls mostly on Robert Downey Jr. (and don’t get me started on the second one), Cowboys & Aliens is awful and Zathura is pretty good. Nothing more. So when he took a swipe at The Jungle Book, which everyone knows, I didn't particularly care for it. Which makes the result all the more enjoyable. It's not that it's a perfect film, at times it's quite choppy in terms of story (the part with monkeys could have been shorter), but as a film with ambitions to entertain young and old viewers alike, this journey among digital animals simply works. Favreau handles the action scenes, the suspenseful moments and the humour, and he also keeps an eye on the visuals. The Jungle Book is gorgeous, and the wilderness can even bear comparison to Avatar's Pandora. There's plenty to look at and I imagine the little ones will stare at the screen with utter delight, whether it's Baloo cackling, Sher Khan terrifying or Scarlett Johansson hissing. This is not a cinematic revolution or a film that will go down in history, but it’s a very proper genre film where almost everything works as it should. Well done. And I wouldn't mind seeing it a second time.

I got what I expected. And even though I wasn't expecting much, it's actually good. The Huntsman: Winter's War doesn't surprise with anything, certainly not with the story and twists, but as a fairy tale fantasy one-shot it's pretty good. Mostly because of the cast. Chris Hemsworth fits the role of the axe-wielding brawler and doesn't push him into any great acting, Charlize Theron enjoys the baddie, Emily Blunt manages to inspire both fear and pity (within the confines of the genre, of course), and Jessica Chastain is sexy even when she's chopping people's arms off. The visual effects are quite good and there is always something happening on screen during the less than two hours, so boredom doesn't set in and that voice that whispers that you are actually watching a completely useless movie is never so loud that you have to take it seriously. Overall, it comes out to be two hours of above average easygoing entertainment with a solid amount of skillfully filmed action and a fine adventure atmosphere. Only the dwarf humor misses the mark a bit. Overall, nothing great, but a pretty good film that stands up more or less without problems next to the first one.

I'll say right off the bat that I liked the second Captain America better, but fortunately the Russos carried a lot of things over from that into Civil War. The action is still just as gritty and full of clever moments, and there's plenty of room for the other heroes, both newcomers and those from the other films, to show off their abilities. When the action starts, fans of Cap, Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hawkeye and the newcomers will come into their own – Spidey and Black Pather are excellent. The problem, however, comes when the action stops. The Russos are still great at handling characters and defining their perspective on the whole situation in one sentence, making you understand why Black Widow doesn't go with Captain and why Scarlet Witch is on his side. But it's too much. There are simply too many heroes, so while the shorthand works, few get the space to impress. In the end, this is a film in which Tony Stark and Bucky are at the center of the action and the others are more or less extras. Everyone has a chance to make an impact, but if half of the supporting characters were cut out, it wouldn't matter at all. They don't hurt, they don't step over each other, but there's just no time to resolve the conflicts of these secondary characters in a way that makes one really care. On the other hand, even two sentences tossed off by Vision in a silly sweater are still more interesting than the ramblings of Batman and Superman discovering that their moms have the same name. The third Captain is good, but the thing we feared was a bit of a factor. The Marvel Universe has swelled so much that the even best filmmakers simply can't make a movie out of the pile of characters and motives in a way they all get adequate space in. And it's a bit of a shame. The solos suit this franchise better than the team-ups. On the other hand, if the team-ups look like Civil War, I'll always be happy to be there.

I have a soft spot for the X-Men, after all, they showed how to confidently make comic book adaptations, managing to make them smart and ambitious, stripping them of the label of children's entertainment. They've always been smarter, had better fleshed out characters, and didn’t care about black and white. That is, until recently, because X-Men: Apocalypse is a step backwards in everything I listed above. And a hell of a big one. The sixth X-Men movie feels like something that was made in the late 90s, a time when it wasn't the norm to have characters dealing with a crisis of faith (like Nightcrawler in X-Men 2), drawing on the political situation of the 70s (Days of Future Past), or wondering if mutation was a disease or evolution (more or less the entire original trilogy). Now we have a blue idiot who wants to destroy the world for his ego, and that's it. Bryan Singer and his team seem to have ditched what has always been their strength and made a generic blockbuster for a lot of money. Unfortunately, the director's action sequences never work as well as the character work, he doesn't quite master the digital effects either, and he's got a bunch of characters that are either underused or completely unnecessary. In the end, it turned out to be a mediocre quarter-billion dollar movie. Personally, I'm used to more from this franchise. A lot more.

I got what I wanted. But it's worth remembering that Shane Black, who wrote The Last Boy Scout, was twenty-five years younger, so The Nice Guys is closer to his directorial debut Kiss Kiss Bang Bang than to the rampage of Joe Hallenbeck and Jimmy Dix. Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling are a bit off as the detectives most of the time and usually don't really know who's shooting at them and why, but Black is understandably in complete control of the whole situation and lays his cards on the table at the right time. The whole thing is endearingly goofy though, so not only do the protagonists have no idea what's going on around them at times, but Black is able to afford some very campy (and great) action scenes full of ideas, bizarre jokes and punchlines you wouldn't expect. The Nice Guys is a smart crime drama, but one that wants to do things a little differently and isn't afraid to rely on mostly pretty gritty and cynical humour alongside the honest battles and shootouts, playing with audience expectations and making it entertaining to the last minute. You'll never know what Black will pull on you in the next scene. You just know it's going to be great.

I got what I expected. A slightly above average fantasy film that tries to be spectacular and succeeds quite well, but unfortunately falls flat on its face due to the sometimes downright repulsive stylization (I get it, it's very subjective), but mostly due to the unfortunate casting of a good half of the main characters and the attempt to fast forward and untell everything. Because of this, it doesn't make any sense at all at times, the relationships between the characters don't work the way they probably should, and trying to show as many monsters, places, cities, spells and things as possible ruins a potentially interesting story that ends up being much more banal than it could have been. Fans will probably be thrilled, but all I got was an ordinary if fairly epic fantasy movie that was alternately quite entertaining and downright grating at times. On the other hand, I accept that it's the first film and they managed to deal the cards in such a way that the sequel could be quite interesting and I'll happily go see it in a few years. I definitely don't need to see First Clash again though.

I’ve never been crazy about Finding Nemo. I think of it as a perfect family Pixar film that looks great and stuffs the audience with the right values combined with humour and suspense. Good craftsmanship, but I just prefer the more daring, cheeky and contrived films with rats cooking in a restaurant or pensioners putting a million balloons on their house and flying off to Argentina with a fat Asian scout. Finding Dory wasn't a particularly anticipated film for me, so I can't speak to disappointment, but the fact is that it's another completely unnecessary animated film from a studio that was considered the absolute top of its field just a few years ago. It's not a weak Cars 2, but it's far too similar to the first one, only with less interesting supporting characters and starring a talkative heroine who is more annoying than entertaining. It looks great, the jokes work as they should, and it's touching in the right places, but that's it. Finding Dory feels like it's going to neutral, banking on the fact that people will come anyway because they like Nemo and probably want to see the same thing, only with a blue fish instead of an orange one. I'd like more than that, though. I'm used to a bit more class and ambition from this bunch.

The whole Independence Day: Resurgence felt a little lame. The first hour is downright boring and extremely rushed, a lot of things happen and a bunch of new characters are introduced, but those things aren't very important or spectacularly executed and you care less about the characters than you do about the Namibian regional elections. It's nice to see Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum in action after all these years, but it's impossible to say that their presence makes the second Independence Day a better film. If they thought we'd applaud the excitement of seeing a heroic president and a likeable nerd save the world years later, they miscalculated. Independence Day really isn't about the characters, so there's not much point in revolving around them for an hour. It's boring. The action does kick in in the second half, but honestly Roland Emmerich has made more interesting stuff, and pulling a Chinese big city and then dropping it on London no longer impresses in the blockbuster universe. This and the aerial battles and the finale on the ground are fine, but none of it is interesting enough to help the film get out of the "pretty OK summer sci-fi washout" box. Unlike the first film, there's a woeful lack of wit, workable pathos, and most of all, those one-dimensional but still likeable heroes you'd root for. Here, you have either anonymous characters bullshitting or quite effectively but not extravagant action. It doesn't hurt in the cinema, but I'm looking in vain for a reason to see it a second time.

A proven director? Yes. A star from previous episodes? Yeah. Excited fans? After a not-so-good spin-off, they're just itching for a rematch. Perfect conditions for a hit. Perfect conditions for a good movie, but there is one thing they must not screw up, the story. And unfortunately Jason Bourne’s, the story grinds and quite a lot. I haven't read the script, so I won't say that it's bad, but the fact remains that the return of an agent who can't even rely on his own memory didn't turn out as I'd hoped. Matt Damon is still in form and the Greengrass action doesn't get old. The action scenes are properly long and build up nicely, transitioning seamlessly from silent stalking on the city streets to uncompromising chases. Just the way we like it. It's good to watch until someone starts talking. In fact, the film's plot is so trite and so B-movie that you might forgive it for Dolph Lundgren, but not for a thriller that aspires to be the thriller of the year.