Kaka

It’s hard to speculate about why this legendary Kevin Costner flop became such a failure and literally a symbol of a film disaster. But there are several positive things to be found in it: sensible and perceptive direction, excellent action scenes (the sequence where the main female protagonist picks up the M16 and starts shooting indiscriminately is unforgettable), and even the core idea is not bad. Unfortunately, Costner did not do a good job writing the characters, and for example, Will Patton did not turn out well at all. There is no shortage of pathos, and unfortunately, it is at times unbearable, but it is definitely a film that does not appear on screens every moment, so it deserves attention, as well as recognition for the effort and reasonably well-done work, although it could have been much better.

This arrogant, self-absorbed mainstream ride is supposed to be the best film of this year that has won so many Oscars and other awards? I can't believe it. Martin Scorsese should wake up to the reality of today's world after those beautiful years and understand that “American” stories of tough guys are no longer in fashion and he should stop trying to replicate or hint at the unattainable pieces of his past work. The quality of The Departed, whether it is a good or a bad remake, can only be judged by someone who has seen both films, which I am not, so I take this film as a separate compact entity without any comparisons or regret about how it should have been. However, as a crime story, it is insufficient. There is an excessive amount of vulgarity, with a good half of it being unnecessary. The plot is far-fetched – tough guys, tough lines, shootings every day – just a normal day in the big city. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but this is really overdone and off-putting. For fans, it may be an entertaining film that shows Scorsese makes movies for fun and doesn't worry too much about it, but for the overwhelming majority of rational-minded laypeople, it's just a typical American hyped-up ride without a trace of real subtext. And the Oscar “for merits” is quite laughable considering the previous works of the famous film connoisseur.

Pleasant and undemanding old-school entertainment with a phenomenal cinematographer and an equally talented composer. The direction is not that important. All the benefits are provided by the captivating natural scenery, rawness, and two incredibly charismatic protagonists – Liam Neeson, in particular, is perfect in the role of a former soldier – and they have another asset: the ambiguity of their characters. Not even the most attentive viewer can honestly say which one is bad and which one is good, or who deserves to win. Both of them are tough, ruthless, and have good reasons for it. The attempt at mystery in the ending can be overlooked, although I personally didn’t like it in such a realistic story. And the ending? Probably the most reasonable outcome, even though somewhat soft.

A perfect way to fool the viewer, after all, it's not about the robbery. Spike Lee excels in his typical side aspects: political incorrectness and lots of smaller or larger race references in all possible forms, so no one should be surprised that the robbery, so tempting and full of ideas at first glance, is ultimately incredibly simple. This thematic mix had to have some structure. The cast is excellent – especially Denzel Washington and Christopher Plummer. In essence, there’s nothing breathtaking, but the dialogues are so fierce and current that you will gladly watch it again. This is how a multi-thematic film without a proper theme is made.

Alien is unique, or how the unforgettable Ellen Ripley rode on the wave of her famous name after a phenomenal success. If Copycat was supposed to be an original and intellectual crime thriller about mass murders, it definitely didn't succeed as it should have. Pros? An amazing Holly Hunter, an excellent Dermot Mulroney, and even Sigourney Weaver as a mentally unstable psychologist can be proud of her performance. Cons? A bland and unexciting screenplay, many unresolved plotlines and inconsistencies, uneven tension, fluctuating pace, and simply too obvious made-for-TV execution. A film that blended into the grayness and mediocrity of contemporary Hollywood.

What led Nicole Kidman to get involved in this pathetic project will probably remain a mystery forever. The fact is, however, that even her presence couldn't rescue the film from its woeful mediocrity. But it didn't have to be so bad. The concept is quite promising, but unfortunately, the director's incompetence killed everything. The film lacks any significant plotline, a proper turning point, or a quality ending. The actors merely walk in front of the camera, occasionally uttering some morsels of wisdom or making a romantic gesture, and that's it. The visual effects are surprisingly underwhelming, and the character played by Goran Visnjic is completely off. When we add all of this up, there is truly nothing nice about it.

Several social topics (generational relationships, abuse, dealing with the death of a family member) are intertwined with the depiction of simple life in the embrace of the rugged and beautiful landscape of central Wyoming. Although it may seem like a typical boring film, full of contrived shots and pseudo-romantic gestures and speeches like The Cider House Rules, it is not. An Unfinished Life is surprisingly striking and exceptionally funny, with incredibly strong performances and polished dialogue. It may not be anything we haven't seen before, but it is highly enjoyable to watch. The presence of reality all around the main characters is very enjoyable, and Jennifer Lopez delivers the best performance of her career, and that means something.

There’s an excessive emphasis placed on the spiritual subtext, which is as strong as the concrete walls around the main protagonist. Unfortunately, this slightly detracts from the apt and raw narrative value, which has a lot to offer. The story about the condemned brutal Brahman is presented in an unusually minimalist way, masterfully acted by both Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon. The runtime may seem like a deadly factor in the midst of all those powerful words, but it is not. Tim Robbins has a skilled hand and proves himself not only as a quality actor this time. The most interesting part of the film are some highly emotional scenes that are incredibly “progressive” and avoid any heartwrenching clichés. Definitely an unconventional and in its own way very innovative prison drama.

The brand-new hero was the right choice for the action-packed 80s, and Timothy Dalton finally gave Bond a solid face of a tough and ruthless action hero of the modern era after a few obvious misses. The Living Daylights is a significant departure from the previous Bond films. Certainly, with its story concept (change of locations), it is very exotic and creative, with scenes from Afghanistan and Slovakia. Unfortunately, it is quite flat in terms of plot, starting with the boring villains and ending with the uneven pacing. The action is solid, Dalton as a tough guy is excellent, but the plot is uninteresting. Nevertheless, this Bond film is quite pioneering and definitely deserves recognition.

It’s a pity the content is so rudimentary, because Mel Gibson proves that he doesn't care about Hollywood's standards and does whatever he wants. The concept of Apocalypto is already interesting in itself since there hasn't been a film about an ancient civilization like this before – if at all – so you must await with anticipation to see what will unfold. It's quite typical of Gibson, with lots of blood, a structured plot full of action and dynamics, plus a subtle hint of some kind of mythology that serves more for visual enjoyment. The enormous temples in the city are truly impressive. The presence of the digital camera was also somewhat debatable and unnecessary, but overall the level of entertainment is decent. It's a shame that it lacks the emotional depth that Braveheart, for exmaple, had.