Remedy

Of course, the most enjoyable thing is to have wealth, social status, and strong support, while experiencing true love, fully succumbing to passion, being completely satisfied both materially and physically – and at the same time you learn how to sweep any guilt or remorse under the rug and get on with life – you have to, or else that can destroy it. Match Point is first and foremost a very clever film and, for me, just further confirmation that Woody Allen is a very special filmmaker who I will have to focus on much more than I have so far. Allen's London gives an absolutely divine impression – it seems like a place with limitless possibilities, where all you really need to achieve your dreams is just a little bit of luck, just being in the right place at the right time and meeting the right people. Plus, the whole narrative is stunningly elegant, which of course can be attributed to Woody's experience and the inimitable way he works with all of the material. SPOILER ALERT The moral decline of the main character then just perfectly demonstrates the reality of what a person can ultimately be capable of in order to avoid the inevitable return to a lower social stratum and give up their high standard of living. END SPOILER

I believe that within the genre, this film can be ranked overall among the better ones that have been made on similar themes. I'm not an expert on horror or exploitation films, but I do think that if you want to attract a larger audience with a film like this nowadays, you should be able to make it engaging enough, technically polished (shaky cam or documentary style is not in vogue these days, with a few exceptions), and try to come up with a few completely shocking atrocities, because (unfortunately) today's audience demands it. In short, the more brutal and shocking scenes your work contains, the more it will be talked about and the more attention you can draw to yourself. I'm not trying to generalize beyond the pale, rather I'm trying to figure out and point out what might appeal to the target audience about a film like this, or for what reason someone would recommend this brutality to you. In the end, to sum it all up, the technical execution is decent (I saw it in Blu-ray quality, so maybe that influenced me a bit too); some scenes were completely "new" to me (the line drawn over what is taboo doesn't really exist here), the casting is purely average, but to go back to the "newness" of certain scenes, the script is probably the strongest weapon this movie has at certain moments SPOILER ALERT (bath in lye, cut off balls, shotgun in anus) END SPOILER. I can't go below 4 stars in rating it though, because it's just the kind of carnage that doesn't get made every year.

Emotional deprivation, bandaged in vain with more than just casual sex, can never do anyone any good. I liked that Steve McQueen didn't mess around with it – he just took a knife, stuck it in the flesh, and gouged and gouged until the wound was so gaping it could hardly be healed. I am referring now to the overall feeling of the film and the really very "nice" fate of the main character. An attitude and a world in which love and moral principles have completely disappeared, leaving only something dubiously empty – physically satisfying for the first few tries, but utterly unable to quench the desperate thirst for mental satisfaction. In some ways, this is also how you could characterize the group of (a)socials (I deliberately did not say (a)social group) that Steve McQueen targets in his second film. Michael Fassbender is convincing and his acting is really excellent. Yet rather than being an "intimate and personal look at the life of a very sexually frustrated man", the whole film struck me as a parallel to Western, consumerist society that simply doesn't know what to do, so it seeks out all sorts of hobbies. Of course, it will be slightly more complicated in the end (I wouldn’t have it any other way, otherwise they wouldn't make dramas, only comedies :)) My point is more to suggest that even an ordinary bumpkin duo with below average incomes can be many times happier and more mentally balanced than many corporate elites. When you have money and a lean little apartment with an even leaner view in one of the busiest cities in the world, you just think about how and what way to escape boredom:)

Qualitatively somewhere between The Chronicles of Narnia (I've only seen one) and Stardust, though it still falls far short of Vaughn's film – maybe even father than Bolvangar. Aside from a slight political touch in the skeleton of the story, there's not really much to review – on a $180 million budget, the effects will simply be aesthetically pleasing, the exteriors will shine, and the sound will be properly punchy and epic at "key moments" (in contrast to the bland and flavorless soundtrack). The comparison here is more about how that Matthew Vaughn guy actually managed to make the wonderfully epic, funny, and much better-rated Stardust on a budget lower than $100 million. The problem with The Golden Compass may also be in its use of acting potential – the film is 80% percent based on Dakota Blue Richards, who is admittedly excellent in her child role, but the few minutes of screen presence for big names like Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman (okay, she's the only one with a bit more space), Christopher Lee, and Ian McKellen is striking and inevitably makes you feel that their involvement was merely a (though clearly well calculated) marketing ploy. I won't deny that I also took the film home because of its proclaimed "star-studded" cast, but in that respect The Golden Compass disappointed me. The use of the potential of the "small characters" in Stardust (e.g. Ricky Gervais), the amount of space given to the ace actors, and the overall likeable, funny, yet completely professional execution made a much better and more enjoyable impression on me. In fact, Chris Weitz has "succeeded" with The Golden Compass with the opposite of what Matthew Vaughn did so brilliantly in Stardust. In this case, I'd call it a pointless odyssey that arrives at a final state where a lot of money made a little music (which is the exact opposite of Stardust). The third star was saved by a few nice touching moments, and that's only because I'm an overly sensitive soul :))

A very enjoyable affair that doesn't try to be something it's not and styles itself appealingly into an enjoyable romp that is technically perfect and offers a very nice visual aesthetic experience not least due to its nearly two hundred million dollar budget. Amazing sets, magnificent slow-motion, and a story that isn't as silly as it often is in this genre. Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton are a very likable duo here, plus when I take into account the fact that Prince of Persia made a very cohesive impression on me (apart from the acting performances, the charming stylization of the city, the excellent atmosphere, and the perfectly fitting soundtrack), the final verdict is that this is a decent, non-brainwashing popcorn flick that I will definitely want to revisit sooner or later.

I wondered if the concept that worked so bombastically in the series would translate to film. The central foursome here is just as (sometimes perhaps more) moronic, desperate, ultra-desperate, and still endlessly entertaining. Sure, these knuckleheads are a tragedy, losers, and God knows what else, but that can in no way trump the fact that they're terrifically likable and you can sympathize with them even (sometimes) in their foolishness – especially when they can be genuinely royally entertaining. An utterly unflinching, unapologetic, and brutally vulgar summer comedy that must be a dream come true for die-hard fans of the show. Just a proper British massacre, as it should be.

My first Wes Anderson and I'll start right off by saying I really didn't expect it to be this good. The way Anderson manages to tastefully dose humor (and really good humor at that) and dramatic moments is very likeable. I guess the feeling that sticks in my mind the most is during the closing credits, when I asked myself what I was watching – was it a drama, a comedy, an adventure, or a film about basically mundane things (problems) set in a not entirely conventional environment. Genre-wise it is difficult to identify (not that it really matters), but it is very well written, acted, original, and ultimately very moving.

Even though Dustin Hoffman plays a purely negative role here, his character has incredible panache and his (in)sincerity is actually quite appealing. Robin Williams kind of goes by his standard. It's certainly not one of Spielberg's top films, but what I liked was the honesty and lightness with which the whole story is conceived. If Spielberg put that much ease and flair into all his films... well, who knows.:) As a filmmaker, Spielberg has my immense respect (for at least three exceptional films) and it should be noted that he has stamped his signature on this unpretentious diversion as well (though not as prominently, of course). Hook is the kind of classy fairy tale that, instead of fooling and corrupting children's aesthetic sensibilities, can offer some lessons that (at least from my perspective) are neither stupid nor naive.

Brilliant, distinctive, in some ways unadorned, and excellently escalated. I look at most of today's psychothrillers/horror films with significant removal, because almost none of them lack sexy female protagonists (future victims), who of course impress with their visual merits, especially in the moments when they stagger in front of the camera in their underwear – usually full of despair and drenched in blood. Orphan works with the concept of culminating terror (both physical and psychological) and is extremely impressive, in some ways even truly chilling atmosphere. The playground scene with the slide is a demonically refined display of creative potential, which (world of wonders!) the director of House of Wax exploits to the hilt. Several (certainly more than three) memorable scenes push this film to the top of the genre in the final reckoning, and I really have to say that it’s been some time since I saw a similarly honest film built primarily on suspense and the viewer's necessary concern for the main characters.

My third Sion Sono film has confirmed one thing for me, and that is that Sion is just plain tough. It doesn't matter how much the film can be incredible, grotesque, brutal until it's not pretty or downright inhuman at times. I also see that as sort of the point of this whole thing – it's incredible that with this kind of subject matter, you can even laugh at a few moments (without the occasional humor, I think I'd be having a heart attack), barely breathe, say "dude, no way", and all sorts of other stuff. A dyed in the wool multi-genre film that manages to take turns at really almost everything from comedy (and I'm really not kidding) to drama to thriller to pure exploitation (see the final butchery). If it's supposed to be a hidden critique of social order, complex and twisted family relationships, or a pure demonstration of what beasts people can be, of course you’ll find it there and the whole film can be understood in the same vein. But my point is rather that a film with this kind of intensity can stand up even as mere "entertainment" because I have never seen a more perfect Canadian romp. Another unforgettable fact is that Sion Sono is a complete professional in terms of form and the direction of Cold Fish has the balls of a Golem. Based on true events...