MrHlad

Evil aliens have kidnapped the superheroes and now the kids must discover the power of teamwork and camaraderie to save the world. It's all overseen by Robert Rodriguez, who attempts to follow in the footsteps of Spy Kids and The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D, making it all rather cheesy, colourful, predictable, poorly acted and almost physically uncomfortable for the adult viewer. On the other hand, I don't see why any adult should watch it. But kids might like it, again.

It has nice production design, but that's it. Arseniy Syukhin knows how to build a suspenseful atmosphere about as well as Ed Sheeran knows how to write meaningful lyrics.

A strange genre mash-up that one minute tackles toxic masculinity and a few minutes later has former Hit-Girl fighting a gremlin who wants to tear her bomber apart. And occasionally shoots down Japanese fighters. Shadow in the Cloud is a movie that awkwardly mixes a bunch of completely different things together, resulting in a weirdly disparate mess that's lucky in that it features a nifty actress in the lead role and the whole thing doesn't run too long. This genre incoherence makes Shadow in the Cloud a pretty interesting film. Good but not very good.

If I never saw another Patty Jenkins movie in my life, I wouldn't mind at all. Not that I was looking forward to her Wonder Woman 1984 or was a big fan of the first film, but those two and a half hours with Gal Gadot went by as fast as, say, the Thirty Years War. And I'm convinced it's the fault of a director who just can't handle blockbusters and action movies. WW1984 has an extremely excessive runtime and unfortunately most of it is completely pointless filler. The 1980s setting didn't make much sense to me, the film could have been set almost any time before Batman vs. Superman. Virtually nothing happens, and when the action does come, it's mediocre at best. The only lighter moments are the romantic scenes where the film can lean on Chris Pine. But the biggest problem I see is that Jenkins clearly wanted to make something that would be reminiscent of the first and second Superman. That is, a naive comic book movie with a simple plot, easily distinguishable good and evil, and lots of hope and optimism. I don't disagree. It's just that the end result is more like Superman 3 and 4, which really aren't good movies. Overall, Wonder Woman 1984 doesn't feel like a big 2020 movie, but like something that was made two years before the first Iron Man, when Hollywood still didn't really know how to handle comic book heroes and heroines and the whole superhero genre was still in search of a new direction. And no, I don't mean that as praise for the old-school approach. Jenkins simply made not an old-school movie, but a movie that feels extremely old. Aside from the nice costumes and production design, I don't really know what to praise about it or why I should recommend it to anyone.

A fantasy adventure film from Ireland featuring strange creatures that are half wolf and half human living in the woods, and the story of a girl who wants to save the forest, the people and her dad. And last but not least, one of the best films of the year. Wolfwalkers is beautiful to look at, mixing adventure, humour and strong emotions. And it also confirms that Tomm Moore is the best in his field. A wonderful film for all audiences of all ages.

A bunch of unlikeable snobs and liars behaving annoyingly, and for the fifty minutes I managed to watch it, I wondered why Kristen Stewart hadn't packed up long ago. Maybe the whole thing will end up making sense, but I don't have the energy or inclination to find out. Plus, Clea DuVall directs as if she was 90 years old. And she's got a sense of humor as if she was 100.

David Fincher is one of the greatest directorial aces and has long since established a position where we know that anything he makes will be at least interesting, and Mank is no exception. However, I suffered quite a bit as a viewer with it. This trip to 1940s Hollywood is no doubt a good film, and the depiction of the era, the politicking of the studios, and the life of a screenwriter who, though he drank a lot, could be all the more honest, is definitely worth watching, even if I was bored from the halfway point on. All those objective and technical qualities I can understand and subscribe to, Fincher knows what he's doing and he does it damn well. It's just that this time he didn't hit the mark for me in theme or indeed form. I simply didn't enjoy watching his new film. And he didn't want to make it any easier. Great atmosphere, a perfect Gary Oldman, great sets and music, but behind all that is the all-too-ordinary story of an all-too-ordinary man. I expect something more progressive from Fincher. Maybe, since he was directing his late father's script, he wanted to keep himself a little bit in check. I could understand that, but I'm not sure it was worth it.

Christopher Landon proves for the third time that he has great ideas, but as an executor he can't squeeze great films out of them. In doing so, he manages, perhaps for the first time, a workable horror atmosphere and solid gore, plus he has two very decent actors at his disposal. Unfortunately, however, as always, it falls horribly short. It's a shame, his ideas deserve a more imaginative execution. But I've been thinking that since the first Happy Death Day.

A comet is heading for Earth and Gerard Butler must save his family. Not the world or civilization, just his family. On the surface, Greenland is a very ordinary disaster movie, but what makes it different from the others is that it revolves around ordinary people trying to survive. Nothing more. Solid actors, very brisk pace and well built tension. Nothing too new, but above average entertainment.

Two good actresses in a woefully predictable story. I'm quite surprised that Aneesh Chaganty made such a useless film after the brilliant and original Searching.