Isherwood

Fincher's feature debut was clearly plagued by the studio's pansy wallet and promotion, which is quite visible even years after the film managed to reclaim its well-deserved reputation. Regardless, this goes hand in hand with the trend for each director to approach it radically differently, which is also done here to great effect. The atmosphere of a penal colony, where nothing works, is definitely something to behold, especially when you look at the local population, who have clearly done a number of unpleasant things in their lives. As an added bonus, there’s also decent Goldenthal music, great camera tricks with the FPS look, and a cut-out Ellen Ripley. 4 ½. (The rest I leave to the possibilities of the expanded edition.)

The film has a great start, but after a while, it becomes a more and more naive game, which also goes quite hard against the basic logic of the thing. Yet the film still has the incredible balls, even after all these years, to thrill by having one of the characters fish a lighter out of a sewer. There’s just no other way.

Uwe has finally stopped being a major obstacle in the forced consumption of his works and the kid who had to have everything he could think of in the film has finally turned out to be a mischievous teenager who enjoys watching action B-movies while downloading the latest video game hits. I will probably never forgive Crytek for selling the rights to him, but while watching it I giggled mockingly at the thoughts of how faint they must have been at certain moments. Boll did it quite unconventionally and made a brisk action comedy, in which Til Schweiger rocks it to the fullest. His Jack Carver is literally a jukebox of catchphrases, who just happens to have a "free play," so his mouth doesn't slow down, and even in the action he kicks the asses of any overseas tough guys who write the profession "action hero" on their business cards. Everything else sort of falls behind his charisma, but so be it. It’s hardly great as a game adaptation, but given the expectations and the surprising outcome, I'll give it the three stars it deserves. PS: I hope Valve considers this a sufficient memento.

What a bunch of nonsense! The film, which is meant to show how the government can manipulate public opinion through the media, tries to fool the viewer into thinking that it actually takes only three people to do this. Sure, it's satire, but it goes against sound logic and is absolutely toothless. With a few exceptions, the characters don't let anything out of their mouths that has any impact or wit. DeNiro and Hoffman are great but actually shoot blanks for ninety minutes. At least the film had potential at the time it was made; over the years it has lost even that.

I understand why Tobruk was filmed and who it is mainly for. What I don't understand anymore is how. I don't mean the formal aspect, which fits the "European film" label like a glove, unlike films such as Bathory, which cost 3 times more and still looks like a TV movie. Why the hell didn't Marhoul have someone more skilled write the script. Why isn't the film twenty minutes longer and why can’t we learn more about the characters? Where do the two rookies find the breakthrough in their behavior? Why isn't the swearing English medic looking for the two people missing from the transport? And I have so many more questions. When the Czechs finally make something that looks worldly, it’s also filled with a pile of amateur mistakes just to tell the story as fast as possible. It deserves a slap to the face.

The perfect atmosphere, great actors playing ambiguous characters, the captivating music, the beautiful cinematography... are all covered by a simple story written according to the most relaxed Western templates. The credits end and the feedback resonance is nowhere to be found.

It’s one big merry-go-round of emotions that makes the viewer pull tissues out of boxes from the first to the last minute for both the happy and sad moments of human life. Fortunately, Marc Forster has it firmly in hand, so there’s no risk of the impression of flattering pandering and mechanical milking of tears. This is mainly due to the fresh-faced actors who went all out without having to look like a bunch of enthusiastic amateur actors who came to tell the "West" something important. Yes, the outcome of the Afghan mission after all these years is questionable, to say the least, but that doesn’t really matter when the rest of the film is entertaining almost the entire time. 4 ½.

Howard has the craft down pat like few others. In a way, I admire him for how he managed to turn such a simple script (I preferred to skip the book) into a stylish chase after various symbols, statues, paintings, and crazy conspiracy theories which, despite the constant chatter, isn’t boring whatsoever. Compared to The Da Vinci Code, here we don’t get all that babbling that arouses resentment of the Vatican, which means that while the marketing controversy has been reduced, at least the film has avoided outright stupidity. That doesn’t mean that it’s particularly amazing - Brown is still too cheap a storyteller for that - but as a thriller whose aim is to entertain rather than dumbly lecture, it works surprisingly well. The actors in particular are a treat, and the charisma of Hanks, Skarsgård, and Mueller-Stahl and Zimmer's fantastic choruses alone make me want to watch it again sometime. PS: If I were a woman, I would get wet at the sight of Ewan McGregor in the movie theater. He’s never been this sexy on screen. ;-) 3 ½.

Clint's Farewell, or Empties by the American badass. The film has a tendency to slide into cliché and calculation, but the character of a grumpy old man who finds redemption (?) in his old age has the kind of gradation that will make you swallow the two hours of mentoring and lamenting the good old days to the max. Objectively, there are many things that could be criticized about it, but subjectively, it affected me so much that I don't want to have any reservations regarding it.

I still can't decide if Gilroy took a step back or missed the mark. The script is decent, the weaving of conspiracy threads is fun and so is the layered ending, but why did it have to be so drawn out? The line between a slow and drawn-out tempo is too thin, which you realize when you think of the amazing Michael Clayton, compared to which this film noticeably lacks symbolism and greater vigor. I do get that it wants to be a bit lighter (the awesome opening credits), but there’s a total vacuum between Julia and Clive, which is made up for (albeit desperately slowly) by the famously slightly choleric Wilkinson and Giamatti duo. And Howard's rip-off of Powell's "Bourne" music isn't much fun either. Despite all the aforementioned, the "Gilroy" brand is still a strong enough trademark in my eyes.