Lima

King Kong Escapes. Do you know how to calm a horny King Kong? You just ask him nicely. In other words, Kong is on the rampage again, and again under the baton of Ishiro Honda!! No, it's nowhere near as good as its predecessor King Kong vs Godzilla, it has a lot of deaf spots, but there are still some nice cinematic nuggets to be found. The story begins at the North Pole, where the evil Professor Who constructs Mecha-Kong, a steel robot the size and shape of King Kong, to mine precious gems. But Mecha Kong, girded by the bombs he throws into the ice crust to get to the coveted minerals, can do nothing. Meanwhile, a military submarine anchors off an island somewhere in the Pacific, out of which flies a hovercraft (all cute little models) that goes into the island jungle manned by two commanders and one lieutenant named Susan. While the gentlemen go to explore the terrain, the lady stays with the hovercraft. Out of nowhere a prehistoric lizard (an actor in a costume) appears, Susan starts screaming and wakes up Kong in a nearby cave. He steps on the lizard and the fight begins. If you're wondering how such a lizard fights, well: it jumps up and with both feet in the air kicks Kong in the stomach, who does a backwards roll. This is repeated about three times until Kong gets pissed off, chokes the lizard and puts it out of commission with precisely aimed fists to the stomach. Meanwhile our heroes flee the island, on their way back to the submarine they are attacked by a sea serpent, Kong again comes to the rescue, kills the serpent and then comes to the submarine in which Susan, with whom he has fallen hopelessly in love, is hiding. The horny Kong shakes the submarine, pounding it with his fists and making it impossible for it to leave. Susan comes out and says: "Kong, please dontt shake the ship. I sleep and I eat on this ship." And Kong stops. The submarine sets sail, Susan and her colleagues announce to the world that they have discovered Kong, and Professor Who decides to kidnap the ape to help him mine the gems. With adorable helicopters he puts Kong to sleep with ether bombs, loads him on a ship and takes him to the North Pole. He also takes Susan, who had happened to return to Kong’s island. Kong, controlled by some kind of antennae stuck on his skull, digs through the ice like a madman, looking for gems, but after he sees the kidnapped Susan, he rebels, breaks through and runs away through the polar landscape, towards Tokyo (why Tokyo, I have no idea), where the army attacks him with tank models. Who brings Mecha Kong in to see him off, and the final battle can begin. Then Susan, who has escaped from the mad professor's clutches with her kidnapped colleagues, runs up to Kong and says: "Calm down, Kong. We’re your friends!" voluntarily allows herself to be drawn into his paw, all to the amazement of the onlooking soldiers. The ape, with Susan in his paw, climbs the local TV tower together with Mecha, where a fierce fight ensues, in which a nice blow on the head with a ripped out railing is the least of it. Who do you think wins?

Such a shame. In the first two acts, this drama had the makings of a nice 4*, but from the bus scene onwards, the story is one logical gaffe after another, with the most profane screenwriting cliché (I was 100% sure the screenwriter was going to unload on me) at the very end. Even so, Bruce Willis repaired his reputation after the bad Hostage. The role of an aging, limping cop suited him like a glove. The sword-wielding Mos Def took time to get used to (and played it well), and Richard Donner is still not an old hand. Summary: easily digestible three-star entertainment.

Miller's film is strong in the details (the interviews with the killers, the final execution), but if it weren't for Hoffman, it would be just one among many, with nothing special or revelatory in terms of filmmaking or story. Capote himself is a guy I wouldn't go out for a beer with. His self-centred, manipulative and disgustingly pragmatic and cynical nature, often resorting to lies, is almost repulsive in places – it must have been a joy to play and such a beautifully written controversial character. The casting people should be applauded here, Hoffman's type - a mixture of loser and strong charisma - is quite ideal for such a role. He didn’t disappoint, he was great.

The film is at its weakest in the action-packed beginning and ending, everything in between is a surprisingly thought-provoking narrative, full of reflections on the individual's struggle against dictatorship, their right to be different and non-conforming (an interesting take on the fate of a lesbian woman, probably the most emotional part of the film) and their willingness to submit to the fight against evil and totalitarianism, even at the cost of losing their own lives. Yes, thought-provoking, but ultimately somewhat contradictory, because I really don't think blowing up historic buildings in the manner of terrorists is the right and effective way to fight the establishment. The action scenes weren't anything great, and their lack was more of a plus in my eyes. The film's main problem is its unconvincing depiction of totalitarianism. The allusion to the omnipotence of the media and its ability to manipulate the crowd is obvious, but I missed the Orwellian despair, the heaviness of life in a totalitarian system. That's also why the overall emotional impact of the film on me was somewhat negligible. On this subject, next time I'd rather reach for Radford's 1984, Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451, or Kachyna's The Ear.

A brilliantly written and acted conversational drama, with an ending that, as you can see from the reviews here, many viewers will find hard to stomach. But it’s the denouement of the story, surprising, somewhat cynical, going against the established stereotypes, trampling on my idealistic soul, that gives the whole narrative the right poignancy (those for whom Columbo, Perry Mason or other detective stories are daily bread will probably be unpleasantly surprised). The only weakness I can see is the character of the detective, whose speech in the final five minutes (the way he suddenly gets up from bed or gesticulates comically when he reveals his theory) pushes the story to a kind of farce. But that's really just such a small blip on the beauty of the whole.

The perfect heist? Yeah, right! Rather, in terms of logic, a perfectly haphazard xth variation on the bank robbery. Logically leaky both in the point of the action of the robbers, however spectacular, and in the actions of the bank boss (who was he saving the compromising materials for?). The fact that Spike Lee once again stood his ground is a poor excuse. I was pleased with his subtle political allusions, although they were not nearly as strong as Norton's confession in 25th Hour, I was pleased with his sense of black humour, and although the film moves along briskly and doesn't get boring, I definitely expected more from a filmmaker with such a big name than just a wannabe spectacular and contrived story.

A bloody morality play based on a script by Nick Cave. I'm very fond of this musician, poet and occasional Renaissance screenwriter, and as the splendidly grizzled and dirty Guy Pearce rides through the impressive Australian landscape accompanied by a whispering voice, it's impossible not to feel the touch of Cave's poetic soul. Even a few interesting dialogues indicated who the author was, but the story needed some more work. It is too simple and predictable. After the final slaughter I felt absolute emptiness, unpleasant feelings and no need to watch this unusual bloodbath again. Still, I recommend it, such a rough and unconventional film hasn't been in our cinemas for a long time and it's worth making up your own mind about it.

Jackie Brown aside, this is probably Tarantino’s icon Pam Grier's most famous film (reaching a certain cult status in the US, see some overseas polls). Here, she’s a nurse who, after her younger sister overdoses on drugs, decides to put an end to the drug dealers in her town. Blaxploitation AF. 1970s atmosphere, a big black afro and stylish music accompany her journey of revenge, with a loaded shotgun, a blown brain here and there and some memorable scenes. There’s an unforgettable moment with a crazy car ride dragging a condemned man to death on a rope, and the magnificent battle between several women, when Grier hides razors in her afro and surprises her rival, who decides to pull her hair. I believe this film must have made Tarantino drool with joy.

I would never have believed, but Hallström took on this unusual and joyful subject with the same bravado as Casanova took on women. A light-hearted and irresistibly playful film with a great ensemble of actors. It doesn't try to make the viewer laugh at all costs with cheap humour, but just pleasantly winks at them "Look how I don't take myself seriously at all". Fat Platt, the women in period costumes, the pleasant classical music and the atmosphere of 18th century Venice are to die for (I don't mind the weaker special effects some users here complain about). Perhaps it's just that Ledger lacks the right sparkle that the most famous seducer of women of all time should have, and wouldn't hold up compared to some of his acting predecessors.

It's definitely not a crazy romp, and doesn’t have the smart witty humour of the About a Boy type (I laughed about twice), and I didn't even think that this particular comedy had any traces of bizarre frat-pack humour. But the performances of all the cast, who were all beaming with how much they were enjoying their shooting days, the very pleasant romantic line with the perfectly working chemistry between Wilson and the lovely McAdams (1* for that one alone), and the fact that the story only occasionally slipped into awkwardness (the old mum's troubles), were all enough to give me a pleasantly amused smile that never left me throughout the film. It made me purr in satisfaction like a cat by the fireplace.