Kaka

A breathtakingly deceiving film, seemingly over-stylised and focused on form and material things, coldly pragmatic and ruthlessly violent. At the same time, it is a subliminally disarming probe into the reality of today's world with a bunch of fundamental life questions in the sense of rightness/wrongness of living contemporary life, dealing with important goals, directions and opinions that influence the future and define the present of man. A film as sophisticated, wise and extremely inaccessible to the audience as Ridley Scott's The Counselor. Script-wise, however, it is even more sophisticated, which is why it has that extra bit in the rating. Again, some users' allusions to snobbery, etc., stem from a misunderstanding of the film and thus a misunderstanding of the ideas and message it conveys.

A mix of The Bodyguard (focusing on the protagonist and his fragile relationship with his employer) and Drive (the aesthetics, the minimalism, the music). It's a pity it's so austere and short for what it's about. The emotional level is strong and the running time is too short to fully get under the skin of the main characters. The more action-packed passages are surprisingly chilling and suspenseful. It fits right in with the contemporary European trend of more ambitious filmmaking.

An interesting cabaret-theatre staging, the confused and whiny dialogue that is typical of Woody Allen, the famed Chazz Palminteri doing what he does best, a mobster. Otherwise, unfortunately, it's a boring, hysterical farce with unremarkable protagonists. The already mentioned homage to theatre occasionally comes through, but that doesn't make a film a film. Putting this on for a modern audience is a punishment.

For my taste, too much time is spent on the early era, when Formula One was in its infancy, but everything was at the beginning and the appeal and trends were gradually developing. On the other hand, there’s not much of the golden era, or the modern era. Lauda vs Hunt is OK, there is very little Senna, and Prost is basically not there at all, yet the duel between these two drivers is perhaps even more epic and longer than the one between the knights of the 1970s. It's solidly done, though, with lots of valuable facts and interviews

A proper B-movie with likeable actors and an interesting theme of time travel – a rewarding topic that makes even an ordinary film relatively interesting. The general enthusiasm for this film is a big mystery, but Ok, a whodunit where clues are gathered by two people talking 30 year apart over an old transistor radio, that’s a good one.

Oliver Stone remains just as critical, slightly caustic and interesting. I'm a little worried that this patriot won't be doing anything more than dissecting American’s biting problems, and that's a bit of a shame (the glorious and "differently" conceived Alexander). On the other hand, Snowden is an interesting subject, decently handled and easy to grasp for an ordinary viewer unfamiliar with the case – even a complete illiterate can understand what is happening in the film and what is related to what. For die-hard political scientists and would-be pundits, however, it may not be the right fit, It's not pure documentary style, they wanted it to be good to go to the cinema and the purpose is fulfilled.

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.