Kaka

Considerably worse compared to the new episodes. There is a lack of dynamics, location changes (the whole film is basically about three mini episodes), and structured plot. The visual effects and production design, on the other hand, are good, especially in the remastered versions. Fatefulness? Nothing. Episode 1 is criticized for its immaturity, and it's exactly the same here. Clearly less rich, less action-packed, and less watchable than the new episodes.

Very artsy, visually captivating, charming, and aesthetically precise, but it is not a timeless film, and James Bond as a character and main hero is timeless. Most of his films do not age, Skyfall, however, will likely age, as it is a more precise reflection of our time than the other movies, with the heroes, the characters, the dialogues, and the polished visuals want now. In 10 years, the trend will possibly be completely different. Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale were about revenge, or rather about love, motifs that will still move the film world in 100 years, and They are missing in Skyfall. Now it is trendy, we will see what it will be like in a few years.

An honest and sincere film with very talented actors. The setting is essentially unexplored, and the entire project benefits from it. It has a nostalgic atmosphere of that era, yet it is modern and skillfully filmed with a solid musical score. I am not a supporter of violence against animals (even in films), so some shots may not sit well with more sensitive individuals, but it is not gratuitously shocking; on the contrary, it highlights Christoph Waltz's excellent acting. It was more entertaining and captivating than I expected, even the predictable ending was satisfying. Perhaps the parallel in concept with Titanic didn't need to be there, but otherwise, it is fine. A lot of value for the money.

It is excellently mixed both in terms of characters and style, as well as audiovisual composition. It is clear from the very beginning that it will not be a technically inventive and sophisticated film, but rather a slightly intimate and twisted ride that, in some aspects, reminds of Tarantino in the violence, the antagonist and the dialogues. However, it is a classic, linearly told gangster story about friendship and love during the Prohibition era. Some things may not work as they should or are a bit of a safe bet (the musical score, shootouts where we wouldn't expect them, the final carnage). But that the screenplay is unpredictable, you don’t know what will happen in 10 minutes, and this tells me that this thing certainly deserves high ratings and recognition. It is difficult within the genre to create something original based solely on internal, non-technical attributes of a film. At least partially, they have succeeded here.

Brooklyn Decker currently has no competition in terms of attractiveness and appearance, but that naturally does not guarantee the quality of a film, especially when it comes to summer comedies made by Hollywood. Fortunately, this is one of the good ones after a long time. And that's even with the name of Adam Sandler in the credits, among others. This troublemaker has a gift from God, he can make us laugh with his efforts to get out of various comedic situations “on the go”, of which there are countless in this film specifically. Let's not forget Jennifer Aniston, who completes an excellent duo. From the beginning, it was clear how everything would turn out, but the script and the storyline in terms of character development were of such high quality that everything feels convincing and logical. I enjoyed it a lot and that's saying something. Of course, the classic American glitz like luxury boutiques, cars and hotels cannot be missing, it increases the attractiveness, even though it’s very cynical.

I understand the general enthusiasm because seeing all those legends together has a unique feeling. Unfortunately, when I take into account that a film has qualities and attributes other than the cast and the chemistry between the actors (which would exist even if they just looked at each other), it is a failure overall. Simon West seems to have forgotten what a quality action film should be like. I'll overlook the terrible television picture quality (retro and all) and the locations somewhere between Romania and Bulgaria (hello Van Damme and Seagal). If The Expendables had action as good as Con Air had 15 years ago, I would be thrilled, but unfortunately, it’s not even half as good. The editing very confusing, nobody knows who is shooting whom, there are several repeated shots within a few minutes, and woefully confusing fights, except for the last one. I wouldn't expect a purely action film to have its biggest weakness precisely in the action. Stallone is still a cool and the lines and jokes are fine, but I would rather watch three of each guy's best films and not have to look at such a mess.

Probably the best and cleanest of the whole series. The transfer to the Wild West and the slight calming down of the pace only benefited the film. Finally, it's not such a crazy, nonsensical farce, but quality sci-fi full of twists, precarious situations, plenty of solid humor and a huge dose of irony. Technically, it is certainly the most skillful part, which we, of course, owe to the year of its creation. Even so, this series is rather a suffering for me, mainly because of excessive fragmentation and inconsistency within the genre. Intentional? I understand, but not my cup of tea.

Shit. Again, the same problem as with the first part. It's not about the visuals, which are indeed outdated, but I can overlook that considering that time flies by. It's about the plot and the concept of the story. The main characters behave like idiots (and I even accept the extreme exaggeration). For a comedy, it's too “harsh” and straightforward, for sci-fi, it's too comedic, but altogether it just doesn't work and it's boring. Some plot twists are enjoyable, the incorporation into the first part is good, but it doesn't hold together, I was extremely bored. I miss at least a bit of seriousness and a realistic touch; the whole thing is just too much of a farce. Most people evaluate it solely based on sentiment.

Hands down one of the worst films (in every aspect) I have ever seen. Glaring technical and dramaturgical incompleteness, holes in the script, insane actors, a plot about nothing. Watching this nonsense for 125 minutes was literally a superhuman task. A completely twisted film without a hint of tension, visual aesthetics, or proper mythology. Teen romance that turns into an eternal battle between werewolves and vampires. Rubbish and doesn't even come close to a one-star rating.

The new Bourne is much more restrained and much less action-packed than I expected. The plus is that they managed to quite sophisticatedly integrate the plot of the new film into the older trilogy, so this "standalone" installment doesn't feel intrusive or contrived, especially considering that the story of Bourne and Cross is essentially unfolding in the same time period. The action is good, although there are far fewer hand-to-hand combat scenes, and overall the direction is much more subdued and minimalistic. The subplot about experiments on people (pills, etc.) is solid. The main character's motivation is good and Rachel Weisz’s performance is excellent. It's clear that Gilroy went smartly around it, he didn't want to pump the audience with even more sophisticated action, more pumped-up music, and faster pace. But to wrap the viewer around his finger with unexpected plot twists that sometimes shock with their force (the interrogation at Weisz's house) and sometimes pleasantly and reliably stick to the established tracks (chases, stunts). What bothered me the most was the complete absence of an ending and a clear indication that if Legacy is at least somewhat commercially successful, there will be a reset of the series.