lamps

A film where you can tick off all the twists and turns in the same way a middle-aged man can predict his wife’s furious burst after coming back home from an evening at the pub with friends. This resurrected franchise gets its energy and dollars from the discovery of the new position of the legendary boxer/action hero of the previous generation, the nostalgia-packed contrast between two stages in society and cinema, and also from the great actors, because the position of sage fits Sly like a first to the face, Michael B. Jordan dominates the ring with charisma, and Tessa Thomson can knock you out just standing and rolling her eyes. But the second Creed showed me that, in terms of nostalgia, the affably human sixth round of Rocky was better, and that the dynamic filmmaking style of the 80s, where the Italian Stallion and the dumb Russian giant beat the crap out of each other, is inimitable today. The new Creed brings back Rocky’s most famous adversary together with his bear-sized son and doesn’t do a bad job at it – both Dragos have good motivations for their return, and good-old Ivan is again an iconic figure carrying a massive aura of the past; and what’s more, Creed himself has reasonable motivations, too. The script decided to copy the arc of the fourth part, but with the unfortunate difference that it adds a lot of psychology that relies purely on old clichés and slow conversational passages that struggle to provide a stylistic contrast to the impressive physical processes, which feel like from another film. Moreover, the direction is very unremarkable, and, save a couple of great exceptions, the scenes from the ring are delivered without the desired sense of fatality and pain. On the one hand, I enjoyed the events around Drago and I appreciate the inertial presentation of the family philosophy, thanks to which the characters grow even bigger into your heart; on the other hand, this sequel didn’t give me anything that would surprise me beyond the expectations and make me want to watch it again (something the fourth part has done despite its 1980s idiocy). I’m really sorry that I can’t give it 4*, but it’s still at a more than acceptable level. 65%

A remarkable memorial to one of the most controversial conflicts in modern history, but also documentary work that couldn't be any better: complex and detailed, but also clear, emotional and never boring. The episodes looking at the Marines from both sides, the war prisoners, the reporters, the families of the fallen soldiers and the diplomats create and highlight a coherent story about the long-standing hardships of the divided and oppressed Vietnamese nation, and the social and political upheavals that this far-away and for many incomprehensible war caused in America. Kennedy, Woodstock, Watergate, Hamburger Hill, Tet, Rolling Thunder: you’ll learn about all that, and if your memory is great, you might even become an expert on a given topic. Together with the massive amount of original footage, the joy of watching this is complemented by the excellent period soundtrack with the biggest hits from The Rolling Stones, Creedence and Simon & Garfunkel. Admirable project.

The best Scorsese. An orgy for cinephiles, a film without a single stumble or redundant detail. An engrossing introduction, a brilliant soundtrack, smooth transitions between the titular story and secondary events through the narrator, the beautiful bitch Stone, the charismatic De Niro and a devilish Joe Pesci. I can easily imagine that this is how things work in Vegas, I believed every punch and dialogue; I enjoyed myself a lot. 95%

Analytically, the least stimulating Kubrick, but who cares? Full Metal Jacket is great for the impressive distinctive character of each scene and for its interesting focus, which (as it’s usual with Kubrick) inwardly goes from characters to ideology and from action to consequences. In the opening part, the soldiers are put through hell, but we can enjoy the rhetorical show of a militant freak (Ermey should have got an Oscar for that), while its conclusion will chill you like an icicle; and even the part in Vietnam doesn’t spare much time following the conscience of the characters (rather the opposite: - "How can you shoot women or children?" - " Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much!"), and the final debate over the dying enemy is like a kick in the balls for the conscience. One of the best and most chilling (anti)war movies, hands down.

To my taste, an overabundant glut of characters and motivations that you can soon get lost in if you fail to pay attention for a second. On the other hand, it’s properly unpredictable and atmospheric and rewards the attention of the viewer with regular, smart twists. That said, its cult status is mostly thanks to the cynical detective played by Humphrey Bogart, who in this role, even after 70 years, is still one of the five most charismatic actors in Hollywood history; if not three. 80%

It’d be hard to find a film where the guys are bigger brutes, and it’d be even harder to find a film where that brutishness and the utterly unserious feminist undertones are so much fun. Anchorman is about Will Ferrell, who delivers what’s probably his most over-the-top and funniest performance, and that’s all you need to know about it. At times it’s a little awkward and dramaturgically inconsistent, but it’s so much bloody fun, packed with ideas and cameos that will knock you down (the best one is Ben Stiller in his Dodgeball mode). If the news were really that insane, I would watch them.

Interesting experiment. Formally, it’s very good, even though the tone is quite ambiguous and the revelation of the mystery perhaps is too wannabe shocking. But as a portrayal of the stupid social networks and their users (yeah, I’m one of them), and the social numbness of today, It’s certainly effective and realistic.

A gratifying love story with formal ambitions that on the one hand enrich it (the quiet nature of the scenes coloured with soft music and a mannerist camera), but on the other also hurt the flow of the narration and the otherwise accessible mundaneness (the weird colour palette and the tedious second half that incomprehensibly expands the events). In any case, a nice romantic movie that doesn’t push the envelope and lets its characters live realistically, though sometimes too self centred and ostentatious. 70%

I love it when a film takes me away for two hours and lets me wander in an unpredictable labyrinth of cinephile perfection, and in the end exhausts and decimates me emotionally and psychically. The Shining is the only film in my life that can fully do that several times. It’s no wonder that King doesn’t like this masterpiece, Kubrick is a visionary of such style that he playfully surpasses the narrative value and power of an otherwise great book, and he does it “only” with carefully built interiors and a minimalist staging of a space that is arranged in detail and expressively connected to the different perspectives of the three protagonists. What is reality and what is fantasy? Is the deranged Jack an instigator or an unfortunate victim? What do all those carefully constructed events represent and symbolise? Kubrick gives clues, ambiguously and cunningly, to constantly draw the viewer into a seemingly depersonalised world and at the same time force them to experience the simple story of the characters. The Shining is an incredibly complex product by a genius who likes to hide and wrap meanings, but also knows how to narrate with the intensity of a monsoon storm and entertain the viewer with an iconic direction of the scenes and the actors, who are exposed to the bone – Jack Nicholson delivers what’s probably his most amazing performance and he actually carries most of the film’s meaning. I strongly recommend to watch the shorter, 114 minute version, the longer one has redundant scenes that explain things for the dumber part of the audience and lack filmmaking zest.

Amazing. If The Godfather was more than four hours long, I still wouldn’t even blink, because I’d be afraid to miss a major or dominant moment – that’s how deep Coppola’s flawless narration draws me in and how opulently the twists flow. Precise in every aspect, from the layering of storylines that depend on the most personal acquaintance with the characters and the nature of their world, to the performances, which have received all the possible praise. Chilling, realistic and timeless. Godfather of the Cinema.