Isherwood

I do appreciate Cameron's dedication, which meant years of waiting for proper technology and the employment of two special effects giants. The result definitely marks a significant shift for cinema as a whole. Yet that's where the positives end for me... because then we get almost three hours of a shallow story (which could still be tolerated - okay, it’s a fairy tale), dull emotions, the most stupid military lines in history, and blue-green agitation so vigorous that even Greenpeace pales compared to it. The three-dimensional effect is great (Cameron knows how to work with space perfectly), but underneath the fancy tinsel I couldn't find anything more and about halfway through I wasn't even entertained. Sorry, but I was bored shitless with this film. Three stars from me.

I can guess why some people don’t like this film. Øie is a bit of a carbon copy of himself, but he has added to the darkened spruce forests another half-decayed house and unpleasant memories of childhood. The fact that he would try to scare you exactly where you expected didn't bother me. In fact, I enjoyed the good characters, who were vividly written and acted, albeit slightly shrouded in the odor of archetype, as well as the good genre work that consistently avoids gory waterworks. Once again, like in the director's first film, I also enjoyed the consistent work with atmosphere that stands and falls mainly on whether you want to root for the characters or not. Kai Koss is not a nice guy (Kristoffer Joner is a typical gloomy Norwegian), but he scored points with me. As a bonus, it also has a funny point. It's not about what, but about how.

The culinary sophistication of the first half, gently spiced with apt humor, is reliably consigned to the leftovers bin by the gluttony of the second half, which is cooked to the rhythm of the second Prehistoric.

While the first film is ridiculous only from about the middle, here the volleys of laughter were flying through the movie theater from the beginning. It’s all already been said. I could only add that Weitz can somehow present it even more metro-sexually and in the "Edward, do me a child" sort of way. Regardless, given the insane amount of "guilty pleasure" atmosphere, it doesn't have tome to bore you, which is good in a way. But to be fair, the passage with the werewolves is entertaining in a relatively real way (Victoria's chase to the sounds of Thom Yorke is fantastic). It’s the most honest bullshit of the season. I’m anxiously awaiting David Slade’s work.

The fusion of classic "revenge movies" with modern hi-tech toys promised all sorts of things, only to fall short of the promise itself. This is due to Gray’s routinization, which doesn't exceed the scope of the trailer in terms of action. Additionally, Wimmer's thought castration tries to combine themes of revenge (on whom and why?), the indictment of the judicial system, and family drama so clumsily and desperately that I now suspect the editor of sabotage, resulting in half an hour of footage disappearing into the void. The film has no gradation, no logical progression, and no tension to speak of. There are just a couple of crashing cars, a gloomy Butler (a good thing), a slimy Foxx (the last good thing), and the status of the year's greatest missed opportunity.

Ellis proves he’s two levels above of Wong. It’s eighty minutes of uncompromisingly laughing fun, in which, paradoxically, the opening is worthless compared to the previous films. Yet it is then amply compensated for by the rest of the film, in which there is plenty of room for blood, stupid effects, déjà vu, and, above all, uncompromising fun. Never mind the characters and the plot - as long as it does it in an original way every time and is never boring, even when it's stealing from the past. In terms of its category, the fourth film is filled to the brim.

The traditionally-connected tale of a headstrong cop, a mysterious woman, and an evil corporation holds the audience’s interest through a brisk narrative and superb creative design that nods to the bygone days of noir. The predictability of the plot (though the last shot is relatively unexpected) and the schematic characters (though very likable thanks to the voices) deter from it receiving highest rating. Overall, though, it’s a very immersive atmospheric affair. 4 ½.

It's hard to know what to expect from a film that, for the sixth time, once again follows the same pattern. Yet there’s no denying the fact that for the first time in many of the films, it has a more coherent story that, while again turning some of the wisdom of the past on its head, does so with a surprisingly self-conscious eye for clichés that makes me wonder if it's intentional. Paradoxically, what bothers me so much about the film is its moralistic subtext, in which the employees of an über-evil, exploitative and inhumane insurance company are torn apart. It doesn’t work on its own, but it is a definite step up within the series, for the first time since the second film. I’m giving it a better two stars. PS: I’d like to see more perspective in the seventh installment, it would definitely help.

This was a nice surprise. Neveldine and Taylor keep on making the same films, but they’ve finally put their frenzied audiovisual style into the world where it belongs. I take back what I said earlier because this wacky aesthetic fits the game plot very well, and from my point of view, it projects more than I counted in both Crank films. True, the "society game" gives vent to their fetishistic perversions (I can't help but wonder how well they’d do at porn), but "Slayers" gets some positives. Butler's undeniable charisma and Hall's wacky sleaziness contribute to this. The ending makes you think. On the one hand, the filmmakers are filming in an exaggerated style that demands the audience’s brain to be in "stand by" mode, but at the same time, they have inserted criticism of the system and social attitudes towards games, the death penalty, etc. So when these two directors stop moralizing next time, maybe they’ll even get 4 stars. 3 ½.

Dick's dark visions are faithfully imprinted on the film form. I appreciate how Linklater can play with hints and leave many motifs to the audience’s imagination, just as this iconic writer liked to do with his readers. On the other hand, the film lacks a more authorial approach that would have pumped the film up into a more distinctive position, and the original creative aspects are not good enough in this case because it soon starts to get bogged down in the rambling narrative style. Regardless, P.K. D. would be pleased. 3 ½.