Kaka

I hoped that after the new Batman episodes and the reboot of the series, whose old episodes are basically forgotten or, at best, set aside, filmmakers had finally understood how to adapt comics. Unfortunately, they did not. While Spiderman could have similar attributes to the torn hero Bruce Wayne, there is a difference. Unlike the millionaire, we have a simple guy who has his own problems with identifying with his alter ego. But there is a complete lack of fatefulness and the further you go into the film, the more you can feel the flaws from previous episodes: sentimentality, righteousness, last-minute help, the transformation from a bad boy to a good boy, a caring aunt and a proper uncle – by the way, Martin Sheen is excellent. Ladies and gentlemen, it's boring. The action is decent, the first-person shots are innovative (otherwise, the technical aspect is hardly distinguishable from the older films), but there is no deeper meaning, no thrilling scenes. The film works best (intentionally?) as a story of two teenagers getting to know each other – the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is captivating. I expected more, but the only reboot is maybe only from a commercial perspective.

An incredibly cheap and essentially stupid movie, but it's beautiful that the people behind it are aware of it and are having as much fun as the audience, which unbelievably stares at the screen every few minutes. I didn't expect Guy Pearce to be this cool and for Maggie Grace to have such balls. Surprise on all fronts, or in other words, even with a few bucks, you can a pretty decent action that doesn't rely on a dumb script, but rather on the charisma of the main actors and a barrage of arrogant lines.

Ocean’s Eleven (slyness, elegance, a team, a main boss supervillain in an expensive suit), Phone Booth (attempt at thrilling pace and tense dialogues), Inside Man (nothing is as it seems). It's a mix of a number of films without any real balls. Without Genesis Rodriguez (for her looks) and Ed Harris, it would be significantly weaker than the standard in this genre. Fortunately, the chemistry between Sam Worthington and Elizabeth Banks works pretty well. Worth watching once and putting it on the shelf, so it can gather dust.

It's good to see it as basically the debut of Daniel Espinosa's, an almost unknown director, at least for now. At the same time, Safe House is a film with a script that doesn’t have any higher ambitions, but within the mainstream, it’s more than solid. Fortunately, it's not just a dumb action movie, although it slightly leans towards that thematically. It's saved by the excellent cast (Reynolds, Washington) and intense, kinetic action like Jason Bourne. Espinosa certainly didn't disgrace the genre, and I wouldn't be afraid to entrust him with a bigger budget, a more interesting theme, to raise the bar a bit and let him work his magic. He knows how action and fast pace should look like.

It's a wonderfully positive and magnificent affair, unfortunately with a very poor script and dramaturgy. I can only give it an average rating for a few things that will be deeply embeded in memory: the visual effects (a mix of Avatar and Star Wars), the adventurous music, and the mythology to some extent. Don't expect any great performances, because there aren't be any. Taylor Kitsch is one of the most plankish actors in Hollywood, but it's unbelievable to say that occasionally he is also likeable. I don't understand those 250 million and I understand that the return is meager. It's a classic popcorn movie through and through, but without transcendence, proper catharsis, groundbreaking ideas, or political incorrectness. And that's generally not in fashion today. In the 90s, though, it would have been a hit.

A film that will make a real mess in your head. In my opinion, there are several ways to perceive it, and it is difficult to say which one is the right one. Is Ridley Scott really beyond his peak, and did he really mean this empty script seriously? Does he need to give illogical explanations in the second part to squeeze out more money? The film has plenty of unanswered questions, also its intention? It all seems strange, just like the rating, which is very lukewarm. I have the impression that Prometheus will end up like Blade Runner over time, it is also technically timeless, equally ambiguous, perhaps more ethereal and iconic (tears in rain, doves), but it has many common elements. Yes, at first glance, the script seems rushed. Because the first hour is pure sci-fi orgy, meticulously executed down to the last detail, brilliantly acted, with a stunning main musical motif, and technically flawless. In the middle, the film turns into a survival drama, which is effective but divides the audience in two. Probably only in the director's cut, we will truly find out what Ridley means – or Blade Runner for the second time. I’m not afraid to say that over time it will become a timeless film that needs to mature. Just unlike Blade Runner, there are too few key answers and too many questions, and the bridge in the form of philosophy and figure it yourself is slightly missing. For that reason alone, a lower rating for the so far most controversial film of the last months or years within the genre.

Standard stuff. The main shootout is not great, the camera is bad, the story is solid, but the execution and theme are basically average, sometimes even trashy. During the introduction, I hoped that the Miami Vice-style setup wouldn't be just a few initial shots, that there would be a lot of similarly perfectly tuned elements throughout the film, but that was not the case, unfortunately. There are a few bright moments, but otherwise, it's just average, pure and simple, with Wahlberg playing his typical tough guy again.

David Fincher's directorial style is beautifully easy to recognize, he imparts it to every one of his films. Brilliantly crafted dialogues, musical score, uncompromising atmosphere. This film could have been made in a number different ways. Essentially, it is a considerably clichéd and well-known story about a serial killer, but in the hands of a master, it becomes a unique cinematic delicacy, where ordinary things are presented in a completely extraordinary and distinctive manner. In the end, it is a seemingly well-behaved and coherent film that is brutally eccentric and demonically precisely shot. I wouldn't expect anything less from Fincher.

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.