Kaka

And the Oscar for non-stop pure redneck neo-western goes to? David Mackenzie, who has handled an uninteresting material decently, creating a swaggering retro one-off with a boisterous Jeff Bridges the way we like him and a wacky Ben Foster the way we absolutely love him. Oddly enough, it also works quite well as an interesting probe amongst working-class Midwesterners. It doesn’t have any bigger ambitions, but it’s good for a Saturday siesta.

From the very first shot it is devilishly sophisticated and deceiving, and a grandiose depiction of the pure dehumanization of a relationship between two people. All this against the depressing backdrop of a ship or the darkened streets of Paris – your typical neo-noir Polanski of the late eighties/early nineties. It's fascinating how emotionally complex this fresco is and yet it flows with the ease and agility of a racy erotic thriller. One of the director's best films, which you come to like gradually, over time, through a tough skin.

Nothing has changed in all these years, Mel Gibson is still a very good storyteller of romantic and personal stories and relationship lines, but only mediocre at working with war themes. We Were Soldiers (where he left the direction to his mate Randall Wallace) had identical ills and became a mere semi-cult classic for loyal fans rather than a benchmark of the genre. Not even Mel's appetite for blood and blown limbs can make up for it. All he had to do was invite Spielberg or Stallone in for a consultation to show him what the meaning of the word dynamic and imaginative action/war scenes is. Everything is topped off by the traditionally idiotic slow-motion shots of the first line running out (again, as if copied from an earlier film), which subliminally scream "pathos" at the top of their lungs. The performances are fine, the Palmer-Garfield duo is ideal.

A meticulously executed intriguing drama with an interesting storyline, period elements and exceptional acting. The 1980s were a bit clumsy in their emotions and it's no different here, and I'm not talking about the brilliantly staged period grittiness and traditional aristocratic mannerisms – that's all fine. There are some dull passages, especially in the first half, but the second half is fast and well-paced. I finally understood why the modern remake, which I'm sure the younger generation remembers, never caught on in the long run. It was cool in the cinema, but nothing remained a couple of days later. This one oozes creativity and the artistic value endures.

Where Christopher Nolan plants allegorical imagery, hard-to-grasp theses, black holes, and the best of Hans Zimmer, Denis Villeneuve relaxedly and lucidly composes one shot after another with surgical precision, not being unnecessarily pompous or rushing anywhere. At the same time, he does not try to impress the viewer with a wow effect. Why? Because he is better, smarter, more sophisticated and doesn’t need any of that. Arrival is the best drama in recent years. It is coherent, distinctively crafted, at times hypnotic, with a breathtakingly delivered narrative value. Nolan is as his creative peak now, Villeneuve is just warming up. The is how the technically lavish Interstellar was supposed to be.

It's a decent retro one-off, whose atmosphere and frilly 1980s LA visuals are far more engaging than the story around which the two well-acted main characters revolve. By the way, this is the kind of daughter I wanted in the new Jack Reacher and didn't get. Brilliant one-liners and great action. A bit better Starsky & Hutch, but very similar.

Ex Navy Seals dudes got their asses handed to them by Denzel Washington in Equalizer, so they did a rematch in The Accountant and got their asses handed to them again, this time by Ben Affleck. It's not nearly as spectacular and visually captivating as former, but thanks to an interesting crime premise and great actors, it's no less entertaining, but on a slightly different note. The action is raw, manly and clear. The script, given the film's concept, is atypical, with some interesting digressions that usually make for the best acting (Bernthal - brotherly bond, Simmons - self-doubt, Lithgow - the practices of corporate politics), so the final impression is more than pleasant. One of the most compact little big action thrillers of recent times.

Cruelly ordinary, purely artisanal, middle-class Hollywood. The acting is just right – two or three big names and the rest are extras, some mystery, panoramas of famous cities in Italy, and here and there a hint of an action scene. Hanks is cool, but he will never make a dent in the world with Langdon. If this were a single film, it could be described as average, but considering it’s part of a trilogy, where all films are basically the same, it's a dud that doesn't take the material anywhere, in other words, it falls flat.

What can we say, as saccharine thing as it should be, with all its pros and cons of the film medium. But I still prefer the sincere and unpretentious beginning of the nineties to the later ultramodern experiments of all kinds. Spielberg has toned down on his creative signature, but it's still there, at least in some passages you can see it.

A bleak, exclusively interior film with little panache. It's a bit of a shame, but you don't come across Spielberg every day, so the artistry is for next time. Fortunately, Anthropoid makes up for this with passion for the material, tenacity and a gripping last half hour. Murphy and Dornan are awesome. The testimonial value is of course next level.