J*A*S*M

51st KVIFF - A decent entry to the main competition, I’d say. Likeable performances and dialogues that sometimes bring a smile. 6/10

51st KVIFF - Deadpool raped Turbo Kid. An entertaining anti-superhero prank that also has a dark, almost pathological side (the very unsexy sex scene in the changing room). 8/10

51st KVIFF - yeah, an OK documentary with beautiful cinematography and eye-candy landscapes, but the lives of Mongolian falconers is perhaps too distant to really excite or move me very much. Daisy Ridley’s narration was a bit too much. But yeah, it’s nice. 7/10

Thematically plain; basically a filmed fable with a moral rather than a narrative film, but it’s brilliant at evoking emotions and I feel some sincerity from it, which in this “genre” is perhaps the most important. Technically, my layman’s eye has nothing to complain about and the actors are the cherry on top. In amateur films, I don’t rate weak performances as a minus, but when they are good – and here they are, especially the main superhero – they do contribute to the impression. The only thing I found redundant were the opening and (especially) closing voiceovers. On the one hand, the text is unnaturally bookish, and on the other, I think it’s unfortunate to shout the point so literally when the visuals are telling you the same. But overall, both thumbs up, and carry on!

S01E01 70 %, S01E02 60 %. In the first episode, Wingard was sufficiently alluring, but the second episode, with someone else behind the wheel, was a step backwards.

If the Governor moved into my building, I would grab my pregnant wife and run as fast as I can. That can’t end up well, right? Nicely shot thriller, with decent performances, but unfortunately too predictable. It’s watchable but nothing memorable.

February demands some patience. For about two thirds of the film, I was leaning towards an average rating, but then the pieces start falling into place, and in the last few minutes Perkins comes up with a very interesting but not entirely clear point that opens the door to post-viewing debates. I’m expecting a comment shitstorm, a substantial part of the public maybe won’t understand it even at a basic level, and those who understand it will have quibbles about some of the creative decisions that allow the film to work the way it wants. It is a bit of a stretch, but I don’t have a problem with it, because the result is an unconventional approach to the trite possession horror story. If only there were more like it. On top of that, the first-time director delivers an almost surprising performance, giving the film quite some nerve and a dark atmosphere. You can feel how unsettlingly soaked in evil it is, even when nothing is happening. I can’t wait to see what comes next. Yeah, and be careful with one previous piece of graphomaniac bollocks here, the author of which, I’m afraid, didn’t understand a thing. Reading said bollocks could make you figure out certain things earlier than would be good for a proper experience (and if I’m wrong, and he did understand, then he’s an idiot for writing something like that and potentially spoil the surprise for others… so whatever).

Conjured by the mainstream. Exactly the same as the first one: almost flawless craftsmanship wrapped in ghost-story clichés where nothing really interesting happens. No tension, no surprising twist, not even any interesting jump-scares (there are jump-scares, and they are effective, but they are classic, nothing fun). The ghosts also look pretty weak from up close, the scariest one is the portrait of the nun. It’s more than two hours long, completely unwarranted given how simple everything is. The efforts to generate fear for the character of Ed Warren are in vain, in the previous film nothing happens to anyone in the end, and it’s clear that nothing will happen to anyone here, either. In short, a horror safe space, which is exactly what horror shouldn’t be. It can be safely recommended to the people unable to appreciate indie horror films with higher artistic values, that are also sharper and more demanding on the viewer (knock, knock). Unfortunately these days studios won’t offer anything better. The first time was a lot of fun, but, if we count the Insidious films, this is Wan’s fourth stop in the same building already, and that’s too much. For the next one, he should stay in the genre, but pick another sub-genre.

An interesting pile of misunderstandings when it comes to the reviews here so far, the less demanding IMDB is in this case more accurate, IMHO. It’s a decently made fun flick with a humour that will be completely lost on many viewers, but that I quite enjoyed. It’s self-consciously cringe, but really funny. Like, for instance, when one of the robbers asks a hostage if they are hungry… - Are you OK? You need some food? - Yes. Please! - I'm sorry. I don't have any. If you find this exchange funny, give it a go.

It is a pretty interestingly conceived revenge/kidnap/slasher movie, but I believe it’s the first time in Boglioano’s filmography that I don’t see a step forward, but actually a step backward (especially compared to his previous two films, Late Phases and Here Comes the Devil). Instead of a film by a mature and confident filmmaker, this one feels like an unclear début full of intention and good ideas that the author is still searching.