EvilPhoEniX

Ridley Scott and another historical romp. This time he chose the historical icon Napoleon and, according to the previews, it was expected to be an adept for the film of the year, but according to the current rating of 72%, it will definitely not be and I was expecting more. It is still a great cinematic and genre event, though, especially since we don't get many huge historical films (when we do get one, it's usually without battles), so I thank Scott for this one. But the film suffers a lot from being a shortened version (it would have benefited from being split into two films), because even at 4 and a half hours, I don't think it can fully hold your attention. Joaquin Phoenix is of course excellent, he gives a great performance, and Vanessa Kirby follows suit. Surprisingly, the rest of the characters don't have much to work with here, they have small roles and no one else manages to impress in such a small space. The production design and craftsmanship are of course top notch, what the film presents historically seems to be true (the traditions, the coronation, the wedding, the paternity test). The are only three battles are they could have been longer (I'm sure they will be in the extended version). I was most impressed by the battle of Waterloo, where the strategy and tactics were nice. The battle itself is not that gripping, it's spectacular, but I missed proper gore, dirtiness and a bleak atmosphere, it's just not the same as the wrestling as with knights or vikings (at least there was one awesome gore scene with a horse right in the beginning, that was over the top), in short I've seen better, but I'm glad for this one too. The politics are dealt with rather quickly, with unfortunately no big intrigue. But what disappoints the most is that the emotions are completely absent, the film doesn't do much with the viewer. Napoleon's relationship with Josephine is cold, and I missed a downright memorable moment. I had a great time though, the film held my attention for the whole two and a half hours (maybe I was more entertained than in Oppenheimer), and it's definitely better than Fincher's The Killer – I haven't seen Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon, but I don't trust it to justify the running time at all. We'll see what the extended version brings. While this is not the movie of the year, it's still above average and deserves the big screen. 75%

A psychological drama with elements of a thriller and social overtones. Those who like the North and especially women with children, can easily add a star. The story focuses on 9th grade students, one of them, while filling out a questionnaire, suddenly declares that life has no meaning and takes himself out of the classroom, climbs a tree and refuses to come down. His classmates gradually start sacrificing various things to convince him to come down. The premise is quite interesting, it shows again that Scandinavian kids are kind of weird (we've seen plenty of films with children's institutions that come from the North). It starts off lightly and begins to get heated towards the end. Admittedly there is nothing too explicit, violent or shocking to expect, but at least you get the cutting off of a finger and the decapitation of a dog. Fortunately, it has a running time of 90 minutes. It's quite intimate and minimalistic, about a few characters, and it's more of a thought-provoking film, but it can throw the weaker characters for a loop. I honestly didn't enjoy it enough to go higher with a rating, but it has something going for it. 6/10.

Creator was supposed to be the sci-fi hit of the year, but the actual result was almost unwatchable, I suffered unbelievably. In short, Gareth Edwards made a film that, in its style, evoked the Star Wars I hated. I was kind of hoping it would be something along the lines of Independence Day, only with UFOs replaced by an artificial intelligence, but I was sorely mistaken. The film gave me the impression that with 40 minutes gone by, I still didn't know what was going on, there was no introduction to the characters or plot, just one scene after another, with zero viewer engagement. It's like putting episode 6 of a random series and trying to get my bearings on the plot. I was absolutely not entertained by Washington, and the rest of the characters didn't engage me either. The action was dull, I found it to be childish and unexciting. There’s nothing epic, no wow moment, no suspense or atmosphere, just something happening and I didn't really care by halfway through the film, I just wanted it to end. In the end I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema, I've never seen more boring action sci-fi. Disappointment of the year. 3/10.

A three-hour Indian blockbuster that is mature and complex. This is the first project of director Atlee Kumar and it is a huge global hit, and the second biggest blockbuster from India this year after Pathaan, also starring 58-year-old Shahrukh Khan, one of India's biggest stars. The story focuses on Vikram Rathore, the warden of a prison who to fix a corrupt society and right the system by taking revenge on both the rich and the corrupt scumbags. It's a bit of a mix between Robin Hood and Money Heist, which suited me just fine. I thought it was genius that the main character is helped by women from prison, so the police are looking for someone who has been locked up for a long time, I liked this a lot. Jawan is a three-hour massive blockbuster that combines maybe ten genres, but is interesting on every level and it really holds together as a whole. The story works, on the one hand it grabs the heart, can be touching (the scene with the children dying in hospital is intense), the surprise moments works – I like how India can pull off twist after twist, the viewer is really shocked to the core at the end! The romantic line works here too, the main character starts dating the police inspector who is looking for him. The humour works at times, the dramatic scenes also have a charge, even the musical numbers with the dances and songs are spectacular and a good watch (especially when you realise how much work must have gone behind it). The action itself is also worth praising. It's not so overdone and doesn't have much CGI, it’s down to earth for Indian standards, though there are a lot of slow-motion sequences, but at least it's nice and spectacular, in short it's great to watch. The three hours go by very quickly, the pace is engrossing and with such a diverse number of genres, you never get bored. For me, a great ride. 8/10.

A great detective thriller from Czechia of European cut that will not be a disgrace in the world, and for me the best thriller ever made in our country. The story focuses on a provocative influencer who goes silent out of the blue. A 15 year old girl accidentally finds her photo on her dad's phone and begins an investigative hunt for the truth that is not entertaining, but also manages to thrill and fuck with the viewer several times. The actors do a very good job by Czech standards, the film nicely points out the pitfalls of today's modern times around social networks and the music is excellent (there are few nice songs, but the droning element added to the atmosphere and tension incredibly). The film manages to keep the viewer at attention throughout , which is not always the case with foreign productions, let alone in our country. I liked that the whole film keeps the viewer guessing who is behind it all and when you think the cards have been revealed, another ace is brought out, and I have to say that the finale is more than surprising. Normally I would give it a strong four, but since this is a domestic film that is unrivalled in quality, I don't hesitate to give it a full score. It is really good, I still can't believe it. 85%.

A weaker moment for David Fincher. The trailer touted an attractive thriller about a hitman, which seemed to be his strongest point, but the result is not very satisfying. The first half hour is excellent, as we watch Michael Fassbender in an apartment preparing to shoot someone with a sniper rifle. I liked the attention to detail, his preparation and the excellent monologues, which consisted of various statistics and philosophising, I that enjoyed a lot (too bad the whole film wasn't in this style), but then it takes a bit of a turn and starts to fall rather flat. The second half in particular is already quite contrived. I was kind of hoping that Fincher would focus on the hitman style, that we'd be watching a professional assassin going from target to target and various forms of defusing with high attention to detail, but this another personal revenge that doesn't stand out from the competition in anything interesting, and Fincher's signature isn't very recognizable. Fassbender's acting is good, likewise of course with the craftsmanship, but plot-wise it doesn't have any balls, there's not much action either, no satisfying twist (at least the fight in the apartment had balls, it was pleasantly gritty, with great cinematography and interestingly shot, it was very palpable, it was the highlight of the film for me), the ending is completely devoid of zest. Shame, the potential here was definitely higher. 6/10.

An Italian slasher/exploitation flick with a kick! It is a bit of a throwback to ten years ago when these genre flicks were made on a treadmill and the cravings for gore were satisfied very often, but today it is a rarity and I am happy that at least the Italians have come up with a flick from my favorite subgenre. Plot-wise, the film could be described in two sentences, it's very simple. A bunch of female students go to an anti-nuke bunker for the night to get ideas for their bachelor thesis, only to find a cannibalistic mutant who likes fresh meat lurking there. Pleasingly, the director took the trouble to choose pretty Italian girls who are nice to look at. The direction of the film is surprisingly up to par, the craftsmanship is decent (yes the acting and dialogue are not great, but the technical side is very decent, including the make-up effects and the gore). The mutant also looks good and is a decent nutter, plus he gets the show moving very quickly, so the viewer doesn't have to wait 50 minutes for a introduction, in the first minute dinner is served in the form of a toddler. The gore is good and there's plenty of it (a decent body-count too). The scalping and skinning can be decently uncomfortable and the eating of guts and brains is always a pleasure. Occasionally the camera does wander, but I don't think it was the budget, rather the filmmakers were afraid to cross the line where they thought this would be too much. The film is objectively at 3 stars, but since this my favorite sub-genre where all the main attributes are adhered to and the film moves along briskly, I'm happy to rate it higher. 7/10.

I stupidly gave it a chance again and it didn't work out, for the third time. Hercule Poirot for me is probably the most boring and least interesting detective of them all (for example comparing him to Sherlock it's 100 and 1). Again it is filmed and presented in a way that could have entertained my grandmother and grandfather, but for me, and I believe the younger generation. the film is hard to digest. This time the cast wasn't worth much either, which reflects the actors lack of interest in acting in this one. The whole film is very slow with no hint of suspense or atmosphere (no, I didn't see any horror elements here), the fact that it lacks momentum and drive is one thing, but the fact that I didn't enjoy the dialogues, story and characters is another. I didn’t guess the killer, but the final denouement did nothing for me, the final explanation is supposed to deliver a proper build-up (like in Saw), but it never happens. I really don't enjoy this style of detective stories without murders, where the whole movie is spent listening to people bored by Branagh. Delete, forget, honor. 4/10.

Though a big success in cinemas, for me this is quite possibly the most useless mainstream horror film of the year. It is based on a famous game I've never played, but given the premise, I can't really imagine what it's about (I wonder if the game is as uninteresting as the film). Anyway, horror-wise, the film offers nothing appealing and I couldn't find anything to sympathize with. It's PG-13, so the gore, the only thing that could have livened it up a bit, is missing. Ironically, the jump-scares are also missing and there's no dark atmosphere either. The animatronics simply don't look scary or creepy, they look awkward, and this combination just can't work for me. Add to that uninteresting characters, a weak story and an unengaging pace, where I was really bored out of my mind. Really bad, (Cage's Wonderland at least had a great Cage and didn't lack gore). This is a horror movie for the kids (like budding future horror fans, OK), for horror veterans who have seen a thing or two it’s an ordeal 3/10.

Joe Lynch with an adaptation of a short story by H.P. Lovecraft. It's a bit of a made-for-TV horror thriller that seems to have fallen out of the 90s and will be off-putting for some, but I have no problem with it. There's sex, there's blood and there's dark humor and that's plenty enough for 3 stars for me. It's proper B-grade retro trash, but anyone who doesn't have a problem with that can enjoy it. A psychiatrist becomes obsessed with one of her patients, who seems to have multiple personalities, but the whole thing goes a bit awry. I enjoyed Heather Graham a lot, especially in the final act, which has great lines and is kind of racy and creepy, quite fitting. Whether the film can be recommended I don't know, it obviously didn't sit well with many people, but if you likes offbeat oddities, you might give it a try. 5.5/10.