New Reviews - Progressing Users

You know what? I personally enjoyed the film. Yes, it had its flaws—the CGI occasionally made my eyes hurt because you could almost see the green screen behind the heroes. But on the other hand, the film offered an unusually well-developed story, complemented by some original new characters. Killmonger, as a villain, was perfectly cold yet charismatic, with no mistakes in that regard. Serkis, with his character Klaue, was also convincing, and his interrogation scene with Martin Freeman was incredibly funny. Boseman portrayed the main (and actually the most important) character well. Compared to Civil War, where he played a supporting role, I was a bit concerned here. I was on the fence, unsure if he could carry the entire two-hour film. But he did. The battles were filmed luxuriously, and I enjoyed the individual fights; the choreographers went all out. I would have liked to see more of Wakanda's world and its functioning, and a bit more explanation about the country’s history. It’s one of the better Marvel films, actually more successful in my opinion than Civil War. So, Ryan Coogler deserves a round of applause, and I can happily give the film 79%.

Greg McLean has mostly delivered B-grade or C-grade fare to viewers (though The Belko Experiment was worth watching, no doubt about that), but here he tackled a subject that would have suited an A-list treatment. In the end, it remains a decent B-grade effort. Enough of the letter rating talk. The film is based on true events, and I immediately had to look up the guy and read about him. Such a will to survive is rarely seen. The film is well-made, with a superbly naturalistic performance by Radcliffe, who fully immersed himself in the role and gave it a piece of his heart. This is evident in the final result. I liked the enigmatic Thomas Kretschmann, and I was constantly unsure of his intentions. The film also includes some disgusting scenes that will turn your stomach inside out—eating an embryo is bad enough, but they added a scene with a parasite as well. But such things are common if you get lost in the Amazon jungle. There are also some tense moments, like the one on the raging river. The ending is an emotional punch to the gut, even though no one knows what happened to the two who separated. It’s a two-sided coin—two were saved, and the other two disappeared without a trace. A sad story. Otherwise, the film is well-made, and I give it 74%.

A more intimate portrayal of the life of this well-known historical figure, focusing primarily on Churchill's most challenging political period, when every wrong decision could lead to disaster. It’s almost like a theatrical performance, with everything running as smoothly as a Swiss watch, and there are perfect dialogue situations where Oldman truly shines. He must have gone through intense preparation; it was certainly no easy task, but it’s evident he gave everything to his role. His precise movements, facial expressions, and clever verbal nuances made Churchill reign supreme, and Oldman managed to mimic him flawlessly. At times, one almost believed that Churchill himself was present. I completely understand why the Academy Award went to Oldman; it’s one of the top performances in recent times. The casting of supporting roles was also well-considered, with Stephen Dillane being unparalleled and Ben Mendelsohn as the British king also convincing. Don’t expect action scenes here; it’s simply a biographical journey through the life of this remarkable man, who managed to win over citizens with his actions and conduct. The film also offers emotionally charged scenes accompanied by a subtler yet very fitting soundtrack. I give it 84%.

This is already the fourth collaboration between Liam Neeson and Jaume Collet-Serra (which had previously worked flawlessly), but it didn’t turn out as I had hoped. I didn’t let the mixed reviews sway me, but the result was not particularly impressive. The idea with the train is fine; the first half can be considered successful, with the viewer unsure of what might happen, and Neeson still manages to convey his worried expression of a man whose wife and son have been abducted. But then, what I feared happened. It turned into a bit of a farce, with logic going out the window, and the plot kept twisting in various directions. I wouldn’t have minded that if it had been presented more reasonably and slowly, allowing the viewer to keep up. Even the fights didn’t manage to save it in the end, which I don’t understand at all. They felt very staged, lacking realism. And the final scene with the train derailment? The digital effects didn’t come across as well as they probably intended. The minor plot twist at the end could have been predicted an hour earlier. I don’t mind happy endings, but here it was over the top. Next time, I’d prefer a proper thriller that plays with suspense rather than a digital train and a convoluted story. I give it 56%.

I'm giving it four stars, but I am still slightly disappointed. I was extremely excited for Tomb Raider, thinking it was finally time for a video game adaptation to succeed and become a blockbuster film. No, it didn’t work out this time either. Many people didn’t believe in Alicia Vikander, but I found that she significantly saved the film. Her Lara seems like a fragile woman who could be taken down by a slight breeze, but the reality is quite the opposite. I don’t see any problem there. With the other actors, things weren't quite as rosy. Walton Goggins can deliver an exceptional performance when given a great script (like in The Hateful Eight), but here he had nothing to work with. His villain is uninteresting, and the potential was wasted, and overall, it’s just bad. Dominic West can shake hands with Goggins because he faces the same issue. The action is mostly convincingly filmed; I couldn’t imagine a better way to handle the plane scene, for example. However, the story is rather weak, and perhaps they should have gone for a mystical approach since the game is more mysterious. Here, the Himiko character at the end was more laughable than frightening. It’s disappointing, but since it has quality aspects and convincing action, I’m still giving it four stars, though just barely. 70%.

In the end, I gave this film four stars, but I had much higher expectations, which the film did not fully meet. It certainly ranks among the better ones in terms of espionage action. Denis Villeneuve made an interesting film about CIA agents and their operations on the Mexico-US border. Benicio Del Toro probably played the best role, Emily Blunt didn’t quite fit the lead role for me, and Josh Brolin did not disappoint. There were a some action scenes, but overall there were very few. Sometimes the lengthy dialogues annoyed me. In the end, I give it 70%. EDIT as of June 27, 2018: Today, I revisited the first Sicario as I have a screening of the second film coming up. Honestly, I don’t know what bothered me back then. Yes, there are very few action sequences, but that’s not what it’s about (though the shootout on the US-Mexico border can be described as luxurious; every film in this genre would want such a well-built moment with an amazing atmosphere). The film highlights the practices of secret services and plays a lot with the idea of whether to cross imaginary boundaries or stick to moral principles (the clash between Del Toro and Blunt). And of course, I must mention the amazing music, which will make you feel appropriately uneasy. I’m saving my judgment for the second part, which is supposed to be a full-on hurricane compared to this whirlwind. We’ll see and be surprised. I’m very interested in the storyline around Alejandro, which is supposed to get much more space in the sequel. I’m looking forward to it, and I give this film 84%.

The most anticipated blockbuster of the year, a film that seemingly no movie fan missed in movie theaters. I eventually made it to the movie theater, albeit a bit later than the premiere, but I was there. That’s what matters. I was a bit concerned about the huge number of heroes, as such a large cast can be overwhelming. Now I can say with certainty that my fears dissipated like clouds after the end credits. Of course, some characters received more screen time (Thor somewhat overshadowed the other heroes), but that was expected. Moving on to the execution. For the first time in a while, Marvel has produced a mature film that focuses on serious situations, spiced up with a good dose of humor. Most other films in this universe were exactly the opposite. Thanos is one of the most convincing villainous characters; his ruthless behavior in pursuit of his goal was truly terrifying. Brolin’s deep voice made a significant impact, and the casting was excellent (a powerful voice can work wonders). The film could easily have been named after him, as he primarily drives the story with his on-screen presence. I appreciated how the creators took care to delve into his inner feelings and motivations for depopulating half the universe, crafting his intriguingly non-standard personality in meticulous detail. This is how a great antagonist is made, and DC could take notes (except for Joker, of course; that’s a different level). The other Avengers members also shone, and the presence of the Guardians of the Galaxy was a highlight, bringing the most humor to the film. Thor, of course, stole the show at times; you just can’t help but love him as a character (that entrance to Wakanda was simply amazing). There’s always something happening, and the viewer is kept on edge throughout. The final battle was appropriately epic (both in Wakanda and on Titan). The ending left every viewer stunned, myself included. Kudos for daring to go for such a crushing finale (for delivering such an emotional bomb, they deserve praise). Now we all have to wait another year to see the continuation. The most accomplished, and notably the most balanced, Marvel film ever, accompanied by a previously unseen more pessimistic, yet superb soundtrack. I give it 87%.

I think I enjoyed this one even more than the first film. Yes, it features fewer action sequences, which might make it seem a bit slower to some, but I don’t mind the political backdrop. The film still delivers a perfectly escalating atmosphere that keeps the viewer in suspense for a long time. The story takes place a few years after the first film, and I really like the setting where it was shot. Perhaps this is why the film receives so much praise, as no other film can boast stylish urban action filmed in the chaotic favelas of Rio de Janeiro. When it comes to action, it’s once again top-notch, with the opening prison scene being a prime example. Wagner Moura is my number one when it comes to Brazilian actors; he delivers a virtually flawless performance (hello, Narcos). Sometimes the film felt like a battle against windmills, as fighting a system on your own that is corrupt from top to bottom is almost like committing suicide. I recommend that anyone planning to watch the film do so in its original Portuguese language for a much more authentic experience. For me, it’s the best that Brazilian cinema has offered so far. I give it 90%.

I didn’t expect much and got more. Alright, I won’t elaborate too much, but Death Wish definitely pleasantly surprised me. I haven’t seen the original with Bronson, so a comparison isn’t relevant, but Bruce Willis delivered an above-average performance for the first time in a long while. In recent years, he’s been stuck in those low-grade movies that even he couldn’t save. Here, it’s a B-movie concept, but it’s spiced up with top-notch action like in the most expensive blockbusters. It’s an R-rated film, so blood is handled like juice, splattering everywhere. The revenge plot is simpler, sometimes even a bit comical when focusing on the characters' actions. But this isn’t Inception; Death Wish simply offers afternoon entertainment where you turn off your brain. Willis still knows how to deliver; the transition from doctor to killer might not be entirely believable, but he handles it excellently. As mentioned, the action is great, with a few intense scenes (the car scene, the moment of falling from the second floor). The ending is almost fairy-tale-like, but this time I’ll forgive the filmmakers. I enjoyed it, and I give it 74%.

High expectations were set, as all aspects seemed to suggest that viewers would be blown away by the series. With the director responsible for Narcos at the helm, it seemed promising. But I’m also telling you, don’t expect Narcos. This is primarily a political game, meticulously detailed by the creators. I’d almost compare it more to Elite Squad 2, as both share similarities, especially with politics taking center stage. I was hooked from the first episode, with a cast of likable characters who could easily fit into more renowned films. I also appreciated the unique setting of Brazil, which is an interesting filming location for someone from Europe like me. Don’t look for action here, as throughout the series, there’s only one shot fired (and it’s not even fatal). Instead, the focus is on a luxurious and exemplary depiction of a corrupt system. It might sometimes seem too restrained and calm, but overall, the series really worked for me. Netflix keeps delivering. It's not worthy of a perfect score, but definitely a strong four stars. I give it 83%.

Richard Donner’s final directorial effort, which this time veers into suspenseful thriller territory (though I still have him pegged to Superman, I can’t help it). Over the past decade, it’s been one of the most successful films that also features Bruce Willis. The idea is certainly unconventional; finally, someone tackled those perplexing blocks in New York (I really can’t understand how its residents navigate them). The Willis-Morse duo works excellently, their chemistry as characters is spot-on, and the casting of the hero and villain was well done. I’m a bit puzzled by the budget, which seems excessive. Yes, there are shootouts and a traffic accident, but at times it feels like the film could have done with a smaller budget. Otherwise, I enjoyed the catchy soundtrack, which fit the scenes well. The ending is traditionally moralistic, with good triumphing over evil. Sinking so many police officers and still living comfortably? It seems a bit fairy-tale-like, and I’d have changed the ending. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that it deserves a solid four stars in the end. Rating: 71%.

Venturing into Scandinavian cinema occasionally is definitely worthwhile. I’ve been focusing on the acclaimed film trilogy based on Stieg Larsson's work. I love their style and the lengthy shots of the desolate snowy landscape. Plus, these nations don’t shy away from gritty realism in their detective stories; everything is presented in a raw, unembellished manner. Of course, not everyone might appreciate that, but it works for me. The main acting duo is convincing, with Noomi Rapace delivering an excellent portrayal of her hacker character. I enjoyed the story’s gradual unfolding of a horrifying secret, with the increasingly intense atmosphere giving me chills at times. Michael Nyqvist also performed well. My compliments go to the screenwriters, as the film avoids any nonsensical elements that would make my head spin. The plot is cohesive, and the audience can follow it easily. I’m looking forward to the sequel, as the first film impressed me, and I expect more quality. I give it 81%.

One of the best DC animated films I’ve seen so far. The R-rated edge really helps, as they are not shying away from anything. All the Batman-focused animated films were getting a bit tiresome for me, so when I found Suicide Squad, I had to watch it right away. Deadshot, voiced by Christian Slater, really steals the show; almost everyone will love his character. The bloody opening scene on the train sets the tone perfectly. The team around Deadshot might not be too captivating, with the usual characters like Harley and Boomerang, and new additions like Tiger (who has a solid origin story that could be developed further) and Copperhead. The story with the card is a bit out there, but it’s a comic book, after all. As I mentioned, the gritty action sequences combined with the film’s dark atmosphere are incredibly fitting, with heroes dropping like flies. I’m a bit disappointed that the 2016 live-action film didn’t carry the same spirit. I’m telling you, if it had looked like Hell to Pay, the fan reception would have been much warmer. The ending was well done too. I give it 80%.

This is no miracle. The collaboration between Batman and the notorious villainess might look good on paper, and I would have believed it, but the result is pretty underwhelming. I like the more mature touch of these animated films, but only in the action scenes. Here, they overdid the boundary-pushing jokes, and some moments even had an erotic undertone, which isn’t really appropriate given that the majority of the target audience is kids under 10. But let’s set that aside. The story doesn’t do much to redeem it either; Poison Ivy has much higher potential from the comics, but here she’s turned into an inept character who gives up when she sees her friend Harley Quinn begging on her knees and crying? What? One more time, please? No, the logic really went out the window; compared to Suicide Squad: Hell to Pay, it falls short in many aspects. I did like the no-nonsense Batman who threw out a few catchy lines and then fell silent again. But overall, I’m not impressed; it’s just gray and mediocre. I give it 47%.

An absurd comedy with a thriller theme? When I read that, the combination didn't seem too promising, but the result was worth it. Positive feedback from viewers definitely convinced me that it was worth watching. And it was. Without the central acting duo, the film would have fallen to below-average levels. Rachel McAdams played a constantly smiling character who found everything to be a big joke; I thoroughly enjoyed her perfect comedic performance. On the other hand, Jason Bateman portrayed a person with low self-esteem who wants to measure up to his older brother, and he did it excellently. The story doesn’t make much sense and there are a lot of twists that significantly shake up the plot, but I might have personally limited them. In terms of entertainment, there’s nothing to complain about. The standout scenes for me were those involving the neighbor cop and his dog. The moments in the cop’s house, especially those with the dog, nearly had me falling out of my chair. It was really unbearable. Other jokes were still bearable; they didn’t cross the line of taste, which is rare in today’s comedies. I would definitely recommend it more as a comedy; the thriller element is more of an addition. I give it 74%.

San Andreas didn’t really impress me; I wasn’t blown away by it. But with Rampage, I told myself that this disaster film by Brad Peyton could easily surpass it and become a perfect escapist movie. Well, it didn’t. The film provides some relaxation, but it has its flaws. The idea itself is quite outlandish, but considering it’s based on an 80s video game, it shouldn’t be overly criticized. One thing that must be praised is the CGI. It’s one of the best effects-driven films of the past decade, and my eyes enjoyed every single shot. In terms of acting, Dwayne Johnson holds his own, though he has had better roles in his career. I was surprised by Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Texas accent, and Joe Manganiello, as the special forces commander, was quite muscular, though his role was limited. I liked the scenes with the giant wolf in the forest; the creators presented it convincingly with a slight horror touch, as well as the scenes with George and the giant crocodile, and their battle. The action is filmed mostly during the day, so you can fully enjoy the destruction of Chicago. It’s a silly film where I’d recommend not thinking too much, just having fun. I give it 68%.

The film wasn’t as bad as I feared, given my initial expectations of a movie filled with nonsense, A poorly written script, and a dreadful final execution. However, it didn’t turn out that way. Admittedly, if I had read Ray Bradbury's original novel, I might have had more critiques about what the film aimed to achieve, but since I haven’t read the book, comparisons aren’t quite relevant. Firstly, the film has a distinct TV production feel. The special effects seem rather basic, and I would have expected a more elaborately developed world. The aerial shots of a regular city with only a few CGI signs on skyscrapers don’t impress much. Despite this, I found the story engaging, with an intriguing concept about firefighters (it never would have occurred to me to turn the primary function of a fire department into starting fires instead of putting them out). The subplot involving the rebels seemed a bit underdeveloped; it could have been tweaked to give this storyline more weight and convincing character. Michael Shannon shines in his role, and his expressions are a pleasure to watch; he’s a great actor. The ending was quite acceptable. The execution gets 2 stars, but the idea deserves a strong 4. I give it 65%.

Yes, Your Majesty. Alright, I’ll admit, this latest Code Geass continuation worked for me in the end. Like I mentioned with Lelouch of the Resurrection, I just don’t get why anyone felt the need to follow up on what was already such a perfectly wrapped-up story. The original finale was one of the best anime endings I’ve seen, and with all these sequels, it feels like its impact is being watered down. Especially here, where we find ourselves back in almost the exact same situation as the beginning. Neo Britannia is behaving just like the old Britannia, and it’s painfully similar to the original series. The only takeaway from the opening was the reminder that humanity seems to love repeating its mistakes—plenty of real-world examples of that. Once again, we’re fighting oppression, the main character unknowingly holds a crucial role, and there are tons of twists and reveals—some excellent, some a bit questionable. That "Palpatine-esque" reveal of the main villain's identity? Yeah, I could’ve done without that, even if it wasn’t as ridiculous as it was in Star Wars. But, looking at the story as a whole, I was pretty entertained throughout. It kept me hooked, threw in some surprises, and overall delivered on the narrative front. So, credit to the writers where it's due. With only twelve episodes, though, the show didn’t have much room for deep character development. It was just enough for the main players, while the supporting cast mostly echoed characters from the original series, making it feel like we didn’t need much more from them. I did enjoy the cameos from key figures in the Code Geass universe, including those from the Akito films—it was nice to catch up with them. Animation and music? On point, as expected. Given that this was also meant for the big screen (hence the movie version), Sunrise really delivered on those 2D mecha (Knightmare Frame, of course) battles. That vibrant, smooth action sequence in the final episode was a real visual treat. The ending hit harder than I expected, though I kept thinking it would've been more impactful if there had been more episodes to flesh out the relationship between Sakuya and Ash. Still, it was a solid and emotional conclusion, even if it doesn’t quite reach the heights of Lelouch’s saga. All in all, while this isn’t the legendary Code Geass of old, it held its ground. A decent 7.2/10 from me.

Comparing this film to the first one is inevitable, and I expected that. Stefano Sollima had a tough job as his Hollywood debut came with high expectations to build on the success of the first installment. In my view, he succeeded almost across the board. The return of the familiar duo, Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin, was a safe bet, while the absence of Blunt’s character might split fans into two camps. I’m in the camp where it didn’t bother me much. The contrast is less visible, but I got past it without major issues. As for the story, I enjoyed it. The cartel storyline was engaging, and the terrorist subplot fit well (the suicide bombings were chilling and convincingly presented). The action was top-notch, with intense shootouts and massive explosions. There were memorable scenes, like the store explosion and a major shootout in the desert. Del Toro and Brolin had good chemistry, and Del Toro’s increased screen time was anticipated and beneficial to the film. The ending was again open, but if the third film continues in this vein, I’m on board. It’s slightly different from the first, but still nearly brilliant. I give it 85%.

The beginning was wonderfully atmospheric, and I genuinely didn’t know which direction the story was going to take. The chapter-based structure didn’t bother me too much, but I would have appreciated a bit more organization in the script next time. I don’t know about you, but as time went on, I started to get a bit lost, especially since there were a lot of characters coming from seemingly nowhere. The storyline involving the killer was disturbing; I wouldn’t want to meet such a twisted individual in real life. And then, when various organizations got involved (South Korean police, South Korean intelligence, a CIA agent, and even a North Korean spy), it started to feel a bit over the top. The story did manage to grab my attention, and the plot was impressive, but the unnecessary shifts from one character to another became quite irritating over time. Don’t expect much action, as it wouldn’t fit well here; there’s a stylish elimination of a few villains, including the slimy killer, at the end. It’s not a flop, offering a dense atmosphere supported by good performances, but it's also no miracle. I give it 65%.