lamps

I don't like Bond movies, and GoldenEye only confirmed that for me. A simple story, a tank ride through St. Petersburg, the gallant Brosnan, the nasty Gottfried John, and a dishevelled Famke Janssen having an orgasm while firing a machine gun, it all sounds and sometimes actually looks awfully cool, yet I couldn't stop shaking my head at how a film with an A-grade production and cast could look so B-grade and unoriginal. I had fun, no question about it, but the pile of clichés and unrealistic heroics kept popping into my head far more often and, more importantly, more unpleasantly than would have been appropriate. I just have to stick with 3* because, for example, Skyfall, which I gave 4* to, is a much better and more sophisticated piece of filmmaking. Otherwise Brosnan is probably the best Bond, Connery fans don't get mad at me...

Although a memorable film, Goldfinger, and indeed the entire Bond franchise with it, reflects very subtly, and sometimes to its detriment, how film trends change at breakneck speed, with the genre greats of yesteryear becoming films that tempt the rather benevolent outlook of contemporary audiences. That said, Goldfinger is not only permeated with a dynamic story that leaves no room for directorial routine under its flood of car chases, shootouts, and the cleavages of several sexy Bondgirls, but it also carries the fresh charm of a recently bursting genre and has so many great and unseen ideas that you cannot be angry with it as a work that in some of the twists and turns succumbs to its age far more noticeably than, for example, some equally old conversational dramas. A nostalgic and humorous movie that more than deserves its high rating as a classic of all spy classics, even if it is sometimes too "off the rails"... :) 75%

James Bond has definitely come of age. With Daniel Craig, he’s no longer the smarmy, foxy-eyed playboy who smiles in every circumstance, and under the baton of a great director like Mendes, he has finally become human, vulnerable, emotional and with a biting past of his own. Skyfall differs from the classic Bond even more markedly than the sober Casino Royale, and while it has all the necessary ingredients that we can't imagine without after half a century in Her Majesty's service, it draws the audience into a completely new one, darker and more atmospheric dimension of the Bond universe, where the hilarious antics of tanks or mad plans to destroy the world are superseded by the subtlety of its bad guys, the intimacy of 007's relationship with his associates, and the overwhelming aura of fatality and even fear for the characters. Skyfall is a beautifully shot and extremely smart spy drama that reinterprets in a unique way the established values of its famous brand in favour of cinematic innovation and unprecedented quality. Stylish adrenaline-fuelled action, the ultimate thrilling sequence on the London Underground, the excellent Daniel Craig and the delightfully nasty Javier Bardem. Mendes and Bond on the top of their form. 90%

Very satisfied. Spectre may be a step backwards from the more sophisticated and distinctive Skyfall, but on the other hand it’s a magnificent bridge between the classic Bond universe and the modern agent with a license to kill, but most importantly to keep alive. Mendes approaches the narrative methodically and variably, at times with murderous action fervour and cold-bloodedness, and then with detachment and dry wit, just like the character of the hero he creates. The seemingly banal scene of 007's torture takes on new values as it functions as a reference to the traditions and laws of the genre, while at the same time succeeding in making the viewer empathise with Bond and his pain. It's a pity that the obligation to adhere at least partly to established genre tropes leads the script to an overly extensive and inconsistently presented criminal motif, but otherwise, as a James Bond film, it cannot be faulted from the position of a modern viewer. The film throughout wisely alternates audiovisually thrilling action sequences, which this time often resemble nostalgic classics (plane in the snow), with atmospheric narration and the development of a relationship with a fateful and narratively significant Bond girl. It's really rare to see such a cleverly structured, yet seemingly simple and effective spy film these days. 80%

This is a shame. So many great filmmaking ideas, so many beautifully executed shots for a story where there is much more pathetic talk and half-assed symbolism than real action and emotional experience. Hungarian cinema in the 1960s had great potential and extremely interesting filmmakers, but it was mired in a kind of (anti-)socialist expression, the pace of which is incredibly slow and does not have the unique ability to speak to future generations, as the best films of the Czech New Wave do. 65%

If it wasn't for the last ten minutes, which heavily disrupt the characteristic signature of the narrative, it would be worthy of pure 5*. A confidently directed old-school downer with fantastic sound and precise acting that rides the wave of pure genre in the form of psychological mystery horror for most of its runtime, and a delicate performance by John Goodman, whose volatile character sparks more suffocating tension than the vast majority of today's horror stuff. The information of the plot is incomplete, but that's perfectly fine – in any given situation, no one is sure what's really going on or who the other person is, and so is the fear and growing paranoia of the viewer, making them much more engulfed in an atmosphere of uncertainty. Great work with visual details and hints and imaginative direction that keeps the tension steady and serves up surprising twists in a very raw, intense way. As I mentioned, the climax comes ten minutes before the end, and I think it’s a bit unfortunate that a such a subtle film that so cleverly lets the viewer be unnerved by their own imagination, in the end, switches to a tired popcorn flick, forcibly bolted onto the diametrically opposed Cloverfield. 85%

A film as morally complex as the provocative figure of its creator. It can easily be dismissed as cheap controversy and the portrayal of social taboos, but it’s harder to accept it as an undisguised satire that ridicules far more often than it shocks gratuitously. It’s not easy to watch, and Pasolini clearly aims at the lowest human instincts, but he does it with unquestionable awareness, constantly undermining the initial interpretations – in their exercise of absolute power, four assholes transform their prisoners into animals. The premise, straddling the border between Renaissance (Dante’s concept of hell, the architecture of the villa) and the modern threats of Fascism and consumerism, also turns those powerful people themselves into animals that are never satisfied and act ridiculously towards each other, while the mostly anonymous victims are obedient consumables and the threatened future of humanity. This also relates to the fact that Saló is not psychological at all, we can keep our distance from all the characters and the final stage of reconciliation makes clear to the viewer that they are unknowingly engaging in voyeurism and, maybe unconsciously, getting pleasure from the shocking and symbolic scenes. It’s a perfect “puppet” film where everything is built for the benefit of the message itself, which should never be taken too seriously. But I don’t think I would like to watch it again, the format becomes too mechanic at times, but from the perspective of the pressure on the viewer and the opinionated responses it generates, this controversial film doesn’t have much of a competition.

A very suggestive and unpleasant film, which probably cannot be faulted too much within the director's vision. There were moments when I was bored, and overall, 127 Hours didn't blow me away, but at least for the final act, for James Franco and for the very original and bold execution I can't go below 4*...

Brilliant! Terry Gilliam is known for his original and specific work, and with 12 Monkeys he brings it to absolute perfection. It's not every day that a film is so imaginatively and brilliantly directed from start to finish, and that the imagery and, above all, the plot are so varied and sophisticated that you can't help but pop the DVD back into the player and immerse yourself in the cinematic poetry with even greater intensity. It’s is not a groundbreaking work like Kubrick's Odyssey and its nowadays routine visuals won’t lift viewers from their seats, but thanks to its literally timeless story, the great performances and the endless imagination of one film crew, it’s definitely one of the gems of world filmography.

I didn’t expect it, but the result was superb. It was incredibly interesting to look into the minds of twelve absolutely ordinary people, to see how they gradually change their opinions and how they hold the fate of the accused boy in their hands. I have the feeling that even if the film had lasted an hour longer, it wouldn't have lost any of its quality and the actors would still have kept the viewer engaged with more great dialogue. If anyone has any prejudice about this film, perhaps because of its age, don't let it fool you and give 12 Angry Men a watch. It’s a brilliant piece of work, and not only in terms of filmmaking.