Kaka

Next to Batman and Watchmen, probably the best comic book adaptation. A film full of fun, thrilling action, wit, polished dialogues, self-reflection, and a fantastic cast; everything a first-class blockbuster should have, and with an incredibly precise tuning of the individual ingredients. The last time something similarly perfect within its genre was seen in cinemas was 1996 when Ronald Emmerich directed Independence Day.

The sequel seems to me even more than ever before, that Ritchie says to the audience “come have fun with me”, but behind the curtain it's nothing but a brutal attack on the wallets of the audience, who go to the cinema almost automatically for guaranteed entertainment. The result is a film where everything is a cliché that people complain about on one side, but still mindlessly watch over and over again. I was not entertained in almost anything. Perhaps only technically, it is a very above-par film and some shots (yes, the action scene in the forest) are worth it. Otherwise, it's boring, clichéd, with a few jokes. Instant fast food that becomes outdated at the speed of sound.

Everything but cliché. An excellent film that you need to learn to like. Gina Carano is an incredible fighter and the action scenes are amazing, in my opinion better than in the Bourne trilogy; they are dense, believable, physical. You can feel MMA with every second. Packed with stars, but only on the surface. Soderbergh plays incredibly well with the given genre and essentially shows everyone the middle finger. Many people won't appreciate this film, but a few will really like it.

Definitely better than the first one. The technical prowess of this sequel is undeniable, especially when it comes to the work with sound and the very clear action (although I expected more based on the trailer). At the same time, the action scenes are very inventive and, in some moments, quite unconventional. What kills it are the boring dialogues, the overused plot structure of dividing tasks, getting acquainted with the main mission, going somewhere to get something, and destroying the main villain. Along the way, someone occasionally helps, someone dies, and so on. Essentially, it's sterile boredom. But thanks to the visuals and Worthington’s solid performance, it's passable. Finally, the 3D actually works as 3D and it's not just for the sake of it, another improvement compared to the first installment.

It would be good to say upfront that Peter Berg was to a considerable degree inspired by the master of the genre, Michael Bay, at least when it comes to visual aesthetics and style. As some have rightly pointed out, Michael works much better with the sunsets. But let's go in order. The acting is average, sometimes even dumb. Neither the funny scenes nor the moments of returning to life (the marine without legs) work, the funny lines are nothing special, and the only truly engaging dialogues are led by Liam Neeson and Taylor Kitsch in those few minutes (Kitsch, who suddenly appears out of nowhere in two big projects, is quite unremarkable as an actor). Brooklyn Decker looks really nice, but not really in her acting. The script is boring. It’s hard to come up with something, but the simple mythology and visual portrayal of the invaders irritated me and test the audience's intelligence quite assertively. Just like some “over the top” scenes with the USS Missouri that made me want to laugh. At least the constant eye candy action is enjoyable. As soon as something starts happening, it ends with the final credits. A few beautiful scenes of destruction of ships and planes, effective camera raids, and a nearly identical shipwreck staged above Hong Kong as the asteroid fall over New York years ago in Armageddon. Visual effects with a gap of about 15 years? (something to think about). Yes, sunny shots, very clear, technically almost flawless except for a few details. However, it is tremendously stupid. There is not enough romance, not enough catharsis or emotional lines. Bay is a charmer who knows how to mix everything together beautifully, Berg only knows action.

I didn't like all those dream scenes, they are inconsistent with the setting, and sometimes the too digital or too artificial wolves (like Gmork in The Neverending Story but at least he was scary). But I have no problem with it within this small survival subgenre. Well-layered characters, absence of pathos, excellent kill scenes, and above all, captivating atmosphere, mainly thanks to the brilliant sound design (the wolves in the forest, etc.). Some scenes (jumping over a chasm, or even the excellently and suggestively filmed airplane crash) are intense and have incredible balls, and the viewer feels like they are pushing their limits along with the main characters. Fortunately, they didn’t screw up the ending.

Beautiful images, perhaps even some poetry at times, but the emotions are fleeting. Brad Pitt's performance is phenomenal, and overall the film is more than controversial in terms of what it represents, how it speaks to the audience, and what it is actually about. One big unknown, and Terrence Malick aspires to be one of the greatest eccentrics in Hollywood.

Fantastic direction, production design, and a 70s vibe reminiscent of films like The French Connection and other similar classics. Unfortunately, the plot is quite viewer unfriendly with lots of names, dozens of flashbacks, plenty and of twists and evasive maneuvers. On top of that, there are static shots, glances, a British touch, and I had a hard time finishing this film. Someone might argue that it is for connoisseurs. Maybe, but I was damn bored, and that's not good no matter what the film is like. And I sincerely hope that I'm not inexperienced and unaware enough as a film viewer to not understand all of this.

I didn't expect anything at all, and yet the film surprised me quite a bit. Anyone who starts talking about artificial romance completely missed the point and reading their reviews is a waste of time because they won't be objective. Hunger Games is a game, or rather a romance only on the surface, just like society today (or most of it), which this film criticises in a rather sophisticated way. It starts with the same system as the Hunger Games (a tribute to wars), through pathetic wishes for happiness, appalling (intentionally, for God's sake!) costumes, so criticising the film for that is probably the same as being upset that you're not hungry anymore after eating. As far as philosophy is concerned, I don't really have anything to criticise. Technically, the film is quite decent (the visuals of the city, the sets, etc.). The only slight issue arises during the actual game. Some things seemed a bit half-hearted and sometimes the viewer gets lost in what is meant to be taken seriously and what is just a wink. I won't dwell on the handheld camera, nor the quite inconsistent action scenes (sometimes naturalistic, other times "veiled"). Gary Ross seems be a much more captivating storyteller and philosopher than a technician and director of action scenes. I mustn't forget Jennifer Lawrence, who shines as the modern-day heroine and will one day replace Kate Beckinsale, Milla Jovovich, and other tough chicks, and she to be a much better actress too. Hunger Games is definitely not for classics and narrow minds. I don't quite understand the huge profits because I expected most people would not appreciate the content (which I assume has happened), but apparently, that doesn't prevent it from being a film experience, although perhaps a slightly different one.

I did not believe it. The problem to me is the main actor, or rather the character he plays. It's not that Gerard Butler’s performance is poor, not at all, quite the opposite, but apparently the script does not allow the viewer to feel his transformation impulsively and realistically enough. So I was not convinced by bad Butler becoming good Butler. And since that is supposed to be a key element of the film, it completely failed. At least they maintained a consistent pattern (rough bad Butler, rough good Butler), and fortunately, they didn't turn him into a monk. However, it is still a very inconsistent thing, the same goes for the technical aspect. At times it looks like we won't even see any blood, you get the impression that it is aiming for PG-13 and then some unprecedented brutality follows. I expected the director of Quantum of Solace to have a much stronger action directorial style. I really don't know what to think about all of this. In any case, I believe that this film did not impress any of the many ethnic groups or film fans, despite (or precisely because) everyone could take something of their own from it.