Kaka

The hard-hitting dialogues unfortunately do not make up for the insanely sentimental backbone of the film, which is cynical to the point of woe. The characters are flat and simple, everything is superficial without any believability or realism. Throughout the film, Mimi Leder presents us with a fairytale story about a good boy, whose final act forces the viewer to shed a tear. I can imagine the sweaty director behind the camera trying to shoot some scenes with the highest possible dose of tearfulness, that's how it looks according to the final product. It's not completely bad and the script initially has a relatively interesting storyline. Unfortunately, it becomes increasingly clichéd and tearjerking. About eighty percent insincere.

A much more sincere and stronger war film than the tearful and extremely pathetic Flags of Our Fathers. Clint Eastwood really stepped up his game in the second film, which, in contrast, shows the conflict from the other side and tells an excellent story full of Japanese traditions, customs, and tactics. How accurately it reflects reality can only be judged by eyewitnesses and war experts, but I dare say that the film was presented to the audience in a very bearable way. Thank God it doesn't just show the Japanese as suicidal lunatics and heartless killing machines, but also portrays them nicely from the other side right from the beginning. From young boys separated from their families to high-ranking officers with connections to the West, who are willing to proudly sacrifice their lives for their country. Watanabe is excellent, the action is decent and the non-combat scenes are very impressive. This solid film is worth watching if inly for the fact that we may have the opportunity to see a comprehensive view of an event in the war from this different and culturally distinct perspective, despite some minor flaws and a slightly excessive runtime (or rather, some unnecessary scenes).

With the passage of time, it is increasingly evident that the sequel to the famous predecessor is essentially running on fumes. In the first film, the Predator was excellently outlined, but here we don’t learn anything new (and the ending doesn't say much). In addition, there are several technical and narrative mistakes and shortcomings that overall detract from an otherwise decent impression. Some scenes are, of course, impressive (the subway, the slaughterhouse), but otherwise, it is essentially a forced sequel that was mainly meant to attract fans of the monster to the cinemas. Arnie is sorely missed, Danny Glover the necessary charisma. The Predator's weapons are cool, but otherwise, his journey to the city didn't do him much good.

First-class and now deservedly legendary action movie, whose director managed to get the most out of the minimum. But that was back when John McTiernan still had form and didn't direct nonsense like his last few outputs. Predator has all the attributes that a proper action movie should have: tough heroes, a merciless killer, gripping atmosphere, excellent use of the harsh nature, which with the help of solid camera work often instills fear even without the direct presence of the hunter. And last but not least, there is also the great Arnold, who is tougher than the whole terrorist camp combined. A milestone that became a classic of its kind a long time ago.

Thematically, it’s a very interesting and relatively fresh thriller, but it can confuse to death the average viewer ignorant of the local oil battle, and therefore the main. The plot structure is complicated, the intertwining of several stories is veiled, and navigating through them is an extremely difficult nut to crack. I see that as the most fundamental flaw of the film. The screenwriter should be aware that the majority of people are not involved in the oil industry, so they simply do not know, do not understand and cannot keep up, and the total mess the names is just an additional bonus. A bit more clarity and explanations, a bit less gas and some additional emotions, and it could have been a top-notch political thriller. Like this, it is a smart and unnecessarily complex film with a much simpler core, which is as dry as a hundred-year-old whiskey. Minimalist music and a few raw scenes do not make a good film either.

Clint Eastwood is strongly off-topic in the war theme, instead of the dynamic friendship of young boys, he presents us with a tearful story about one significant photo and the completely uninteresting wrangling around it. The relatively significant departure from the war theme itself – that is, the fights, or America good, Germany/Japan bad – can be considered an interesting idea. The financial flows and the distortion of the national economy during wartime are lightly outlined, so the viewer is not only forced to count body. There is action, of course, but it lacks the rawness of Saving Private Ryan. There are novel views from the cockpits of fighter planes that catch attention, a slightly more detailed look at the weapons or tactics of the enemy, and magnificent scenes of the island being bombarded by battleships. The landing scenes are not as impressive, and it’s clear Eastwood is an old man, it’s missing speed. Overall, it is rather an average attempt to look at a military conflict from a slightly different perspective. The idea is good, but somewhat halfway through completion.

An incredibly gripping masterpiece in a stylish sci-fi guise that is not marred by the understandably convoluted plot involving time travel. Tony Scott has cut down with the epileptic editing, tamed the frantic camera, and now there is something to watch again. After the visually stunning but narratively unexciting Domino, the technical genius brings us a thrilling story that speaks much more to a wider audience. Even though it’s less action-packed, it’s far more thrilling and dynamic, and above all, there are a lot more emotions, like, simple looks into the eyes. There are a few flaws and the aforementioned narrative tricks and crutches, but they couldn't be avoided. Also, the motive of the killer is somehow bland and unsatisfying. But that does not change the fact that Scott is currently an absolute number one in terms of audiovisuals, and with a skillful screenwriter, it usually results in an interesting cinematic addition.

A traditionally strong film in terms of story that relies not only on absolutely confident direction, but above all on a stellar cast where no one who can stand out as the best. The best scene, however, is not as remarkable as one would expect. It is the one where De Niro describes the weight deficits with the typical snap we love from famous mafia dudes. If we look at the film as a whole, thematically it is immensely attractive and visually appealing, and that alone makes it essentially fit into the role of a favorite that will simply be liked. And yes, it definitely will.

James Spader's role as an FBI agent is questionable in this otherwise average and unremarkable thriller. Personally, I found it fitting, he portrays the federal agent convincingly, his remarks are accurate, and his character is smart enough. But it’s hard to understand what Keanu Reeves was doing there, just like the whole wannabe cool plot. It's a pointless waste of time, and I don't understand how this project got the green light from the studio given the budget.

There are films that you simply and easily fall in love with, even if you don't really know why. I want the 1990s back with its typical romanticism, heroes with their hearts in the right place, great action, ordinary stories, and its unique and unmistakable electronic and rock music.