Lima

A bit better than the previous one, but that doesn’t mean much, really. Surprisingly, Bronson is more convincing in this movie than in the previous one, after all, a proper gun in his hand suits him better than his ridiculous looking attempts at full-contact combat, which is understandable given his age. If you like explosions, which you'll enjoy in abundance, and can stomach the shitty plot, you can endure it.

Undoubtedly, for many people, replacing the legal system with a self-proclaimed vigilante with a gun in his hands is probably a compelling idea, and sometimes you cannot resist it when you watch, for example, Muslim kids trashing French streets. But that road leads nowhere, and hand in hand with Bronson, who at 64 is trying in vain to pretend he's up to it (and it's a sad sight), it's ultimately a pretty dull cinematic affair that not even a rocket launcher can save. I'm no stranger to the poetics of ‘surreal 80's movie massacres’, but the fact that in this one an architect kills about fifty bastards with his bare hands certainly doesn't tug at my heartstrings.

A funny comedy full of brilliant wisecracks, with a simple but original plot about how hypnosis can be used for crime. Woody has toned down the intellectualism and added to the fun. Helen Hunt absolutely shines, and she is literally a delight to watch.

Forget about watching the plot, forget about all the actors and focus only on noticing the slightest twitch of a facial muscle on Seagel's face. Your efforts will be in vain, but it's great fun, a lot more fun than the film itself. This guy is a true genius of minimalist acting :)

Dr Evil and his mini-me are not very good, they are actually more awkward than funny. Austin Powers isn’t very funny, either, but those beautiful babes around him are worth it. There are a couple of funny scenes, the expletive gags are surprisingly tolerable, I even laughed at one of them. Rather than a comedy, it's one big ball of crazy. I like crazy movies, so I survived Austin unscathed, but those three stars are probably too much.

Fraser is sorely unconvincing in his scenes with Elizabeth Hurley, but on the other hand he's almost brilliant as a drug lord or an over-sensitive boy; listening to his Spanish is beautiful. Overall, it’s an average comedy with some good ideas. For example, in the scene with the basketball player, where they parody the clichés we can hear all the time during sports commentators' interviews with football players and other athletes. And on a side note, isn't Hugh Grant a moron for cheating on someone like Elizabeth Hurley? If I was in his place... :)

Everybody has to start out somewhere, but you won't believe this film is directed by Cameron. Pathetic, amateurish, stupid, cheap, terribly boring. The scene of the piranhas attacking the resort is like the cheapest Ed Wood work, but unfortunately not as funny. But I know what the truth is. After this movie, the director of this monstrosity was abducted by aliens and replaced by a human with the appearance of Cameron. There’s no other possible explanation.

Terrible direction, terrible script, terrible actors. You probably won't finish it because it's beyond human capacity. Bruce Campbell as the bald villain is hopeless (Sam Raimi, kick him to wake up). I don’t recommend it even to the fans of Sean “Sam Gamgee” Austin. It is crap (the film, not Sean).

The question is what you expect from a filmmaker of Scorsese's calibre: a disposable product or something that will last for ages and that you will love to come back to. I expected the latter, but got the former. The product comes in an attractive package, the production design is meticulously detailed, there are dozens of extras in front of the camera in most shots, and the 100 million budget is palpable. Scorsese artfully inserts shots of period illustrations into the plot, which positively highlight the atmosphere of 19th century New York. The actors, Caprio and Diaz are excellent, but above them all looms the demonic Day Lewis with his artificial eye, you wouldn’t want to mess with him. The story: that’s were they dropped the ball. Gangs of New York is a portrait of an era that doesn’t go deep. The first two acts run like clockwork, but after a plot twist in the last act, the whole narrative goes haywire leading to a completely chaotic ending. The question is who is the culprit, the frequent reshoots or the bad script. I often like to return to Scorsese's films, such as The Last Temptation of Christ or Taxi Driver, as true art with profound content. Unfortunately, there’s no chance of that in this case. Overall, I'd say it's about a three-and-a-half-star film, but the actors give it their all and my respect for the Master is still high.

The love scene with the couple by the waterfalls looks like a Nivea commercial. During the battle in the arena, the Jedi look so bored with their lightsabers that I keep waiting for them to roll a joint. The final battle is a massive mess. Add to that directorial shortcomings such as the final chase, in which Padmé falls out of a flying machine, drops from a great height to the ground and, as if in a last ditch effort, shakes her legs like a beetle, gets back on her feet like nothing happened and starts giving orders. There is no point in going on about other lapses, there are plenty of them. Lucas wanted to pay homage to everyone: Beverly Hills 90210, Gladiator, Chaplin's Modern Times, Blade Runner – it's all here. Unfortunately. But this is still Star Wars, and as the episodes roll in, this new coat of the magic that I love so much from the original trilogy takes on a new look.