New Reviews - TOP Users

I hadn't given Boo! rating in 3 and a half years (!!), and now I’m doing it with gusto. Nunsploitation, the naughty stuff the Italians used to regale us with in the 1970s, a genre that, together with Nazisploitation, is one of my only two hated ones (otherwise, at the age of 52, I can swallow anything), a monstrosity that was resurrected by Michael Mohan – I saw an interview with him on YouTube, where he wondered why nobody goes to see his film, since he made it so wonderfully (his own words). Yes, indeed, the 2nd half is proper Nunsploitation splatter as if from the pen of an Italian production, but I'm more annoyed by the ideological framework of the whole thing. No, I have nothing to do with the Church machinery, I'm agnostic, I'm bothered by the opulent property of the Catholic Church, including those lavish cathedrals that were deliberately intended to appeal to the emotions of the commoners, but I resent when nuns are made out to be some kind of Satanic evil. I know a few of these women personally, specifically the nuns in Štěken, and they are honest hard-working ladies who do not in any way parasitize society, women pure in spirit who have chosen their path in life because they are convinced of it deep down. It's utterly stupid to mock that, to make stupid jokes about them, and it's utterly perverse to demean their approach to life, or even to put them in the role of absolute evil, as this film does. I'm a tolerant person, I would even say that nothing is sacred to me and I can make fun of everything, but I have my limits too and this is one of those uncrossable ones (along with other crap like animal violence or holocaust denial for example). Those ladies have my respect.

It still has certain qualities; it’s really great that covid didn’t cut the series short, but the part focusing on the birth of the United States is quite exhausting now (though logically more attractive to an American audience). The constant dramas are so repeatedly fatal that it paradoxically leads to numbness. I’ve long stopped investing any emotions in these characters and don’t care about them. Moreover, the time travel has lost its charm because it’s too frequent and constantly used as an easy solution to various situations. The main characters’ family is growing, secondary characters are changing, but the energy that it had in the first three books/series is long gone. The only positive aspect I would note is that Gabaldon portrays the 1960s in Scotland in a soberly negative way.

Pure, unfiltered Arnold at his finest. It’s the kind of film built entirely around one man—the guy who found his niche in Hollywood, not just because he was insanely ripped, but because he had a great sense of humor too. What I wouldn’t give for a star like that today...

Feels like we used to get way more of these wild, over-the-top American comedies about 10-15 years ago. Maybe it’s the whole hyper-correct era we’re in, or maybe it’s just the actors these days. Hard to say. Either way, Josh Duhamel totally nailed it. It’s a bit of a mess, a bit outrageous... but exactly the kind of comedy every guy can fully appreciate.

For a Belmondo film, this one’s surprisingly gritty. The main villain is a full-blown psychopath, and I’m not sure if French cinema had a more unhinged character at the time. But then again, it's still Belmondo, so you're entertained throughout. Even when the villain goes on a rampage in some kind of psychedelic frenzy, taking out random bystanders, you can’t help but smirk a little, because you know Bebel’s going to come in and set things right.

We've seen plenty of British films like this—a historical snapshot with a touch of lighthearted absurdity. Sometimes it works when the filmmakers really pour their heart into it, but here it felt more like a routine period drama with that typical British perspective. Nothing particularly wrong with it, but nothing that stands out either.

I hadn’t really dived into that string of bad movies Bruce made before his career took a turn, until I willingly sat through this one. Honestly, Bruce probably came out of this with his dignity somewhat intact—he’s not to blame for the fact that the movie is dull, ridiculous, and lacks any real entertainment value. It’s not even so bad it’s good; it’s just a straight-up waste of time. Everything about it is just bad, and unfortunately, Bruce doesn’t do much to save it either.

Seeing Alain Delon as Zorro is definitely a treat, especially knowing how much he was invested in the project. But you can’t help but notice just how much this film has aged. At times, it feels overly absurd, which really stands out when you think about the fact that the French were also making some top-tier crime films around the same time.

If a few things had been done differently, this could’ve turned into a solid B-movie. The potential was there, and the filmmakers certainly have the experience to pull it off. Not sure what went wrong, though. Take Nicolas Cage, for instance—he fits this movie perfectly. He even has one completely bonkers scene that instantly won me over. But one great scene doesn’t save the whole film. The action is plentiful, sure, but the camerawork is wildly inconsistent. One minute it's great, the next it feels like they handed the camera to a turkey. If you know what you’re getting into, Cage makes it somewhat worth your time. Otherwise, it’s a mess.

Another delightful gem from Scandinavia. It's a refreshingly original drama—funny, sharp in its dialogue, and visually creative. You can tell it’s something different just from the title alone. At a tight 80 minutes, the film finds beauty in simplicity and keeps you engaged with its unique approach. While I’m holding back from giving it a full five stars, it’s one of those films that makes you appreciate that less is more.

In a Violent Nature the Czech way. The protagonist's emptiness, egocentrism, and lack of empathy are interestingly reflected in the form, but starting with the suicidal shooting range boss and ending with Balcar, who awkwardly conveyed fleeting feelings of superiority, the acting is unconvincing. Added to that are a few peculiar scenes raising questions. Before the Glock test on the cattle, was there supposed to be some symbolism in that shadow moving across the landscape? And what about the warm-up before the hockey game? The ads on the boards don’t exist, so were they just covering up the CCM logos because the Canadians refused to co-produce? And that Vietnamese grocery store with pasta for two bucks and cigarettes for seven in 2005? The anachronism checker seemed to be in "Forget About It" mode. The last point is a minor detail, but it reflects the film’s overall lack of thoroughness.

Metaphors for domestic violence, alcoholism, or hereditary mental illness within a family, combined with the perspective of a ten-year-old child naturally navigating through myths and fairy tales, were elements that should have allowed the creators to explore rich thematic depth, but they failed to capitalize on them. The theme of monsters within people and their gradual revelation to those who were supposed to be protected from all evil could not sustain the atmosphere, and by the ninth shot of the Land Rover driving through the picturesque countryside, it had lost its impact. Besides the diminishing internal logic, the final impression is further undermined by the ineffective Kit Harington, who was outshone even by the black furry creature that could pretend to be grandma in bed. His buddy from The Wall should have slapped him; maybe it would have jolted him into action.

It's well known that the phrase “Nobody dies” is just a comforting lie. And so, they pull out a pack of cigarettes and light one up, even though they weren’t smoking the day before. The episode from World War II isn’t overly discussed, but it’s no surprise, given that the bloody maw of the Hürtgen Forest claimed over thirty thousand American soldiers in a few months. John Irvin's film is driven by authenticity, featuring a believable range of self-preserving characters that naturally evolve into heroic figures, and includes several scenes that will undoubtedly stick in one's memory (a few seconds of hell between anti-personnel mines, the “Dracarys” of the soldier Sanderson in eliminating a German gun, or the cathartic credits with dragon’s teeth and the Christmas Bing Crosby). Frank Whaley had the chance over four years to test whether it was harder to act as a lapidary behind the Siegfried Line or recall under Jules Winnfield’s pressure if Marsellus Wallace looks like that bitch. A tough choice.

Some good revenge flick has spawned a child with Slumdog Millionaire and emerged with a confident directorial debut that is anything but a simple action flick for housewives to iron their laundry. Dev Patel also approaches even the usual scenes in his own original way, so that even an ordinary training montage is brimming with ideas that won't soon get stale, and the action sequences themselves, which the film spares, demonstrate imaginative choreography. The cinematography is brimming with over-stylised colours and I liked how the mental processes in the protagonist's face are originally portrayed through cartoonish images. But where the story of the monkey man breaks out of the usual genre pigeonholes is its socially critical feel. India, though beautiful, is actually a harsh country with huge social divides where even within the same neighbourhood you can find luxury and abject poverty side by side, and Patel beautifully highlights and critiques this. There is the luxury of modern skyscrapers and right next to it a neighbourhood of dingy slums with crowded, cramped alleys. But the poor here are not in the position of those who bemoan their status, but as someone who has a rich inner life with faith in their Indian deities. Unexpectedly, you learn more about Indian society from this film than the shallow fairy tale of the aforementioned Millionaire, which also wanted to be a social probe, but stuck with the fairy tale. Sure, not everything Patel does is up to scratch – for instance, the elevator fight to the completely unsuitable accompaniment of Boney M is one of the most bizarre things I've seen in the action genre, and I don't mean that in a good way. But those are minor things, Dev otherwise handled it with flying colours.

Smart, insightful, layered and, although it doesn't seem like it at first, very entertaining once the flashbacks kick in. A deftly constructed love triangle story that offers different perspectives on different themes and playfully transcends the classic sports drama with the ease and finesse of a seasoned filmmaker. Some things may be a bit much, like the annoying sucking scene or the final cruelly long slow-motion sequences, but otherwise it's a damn catchy and original drama. Zendaya excels.

It fascinates me in absolutely everything. First of all, in the fact that the animation has leapt forward as significantly as it did between Toy Story and Toy Story 2 movies, and you can see almost every molecule. Secondly, the natural sequence of events, where the new emotions realistically edge out the ones that used to be in charge, where everything feels more "lifelike" than if it were a more thought-out existential drama. And last but not least, of course, how everything emotionally comes together in the end, so that the last ten to fifteen minutes have literally drained my tear ducts. It's a particular relief and a ray of hope that this journey has been so beloved of critics, viewers, and the entire world. We are all a thirteen-year-old girl.

An embargo should be imposed on the genre of “wealthy intellectuals die with dignity and thus reconcile us with the majesty of death”, but I understand that it’s nice watch and is good for garnering awards. Pedro Almodóvar, whom I respect for his ability to balance pathos with an ironic Hispanic flair, goes all in on this. The camera paints, Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton theatrically deliver their dialogue and monologues, from which it seems that Pedro is not at home in English and his distinctive melodramatic tone is suddenly decorative and flat. Yes, euthanasia is an important topic, but I really have no idea what symbolic quotes from Joyce and Hopper are supposed to bring to it. I understand that this film is a safe space where everything seems intellectually comprehensible. However, it is cheap creative license. Not even the games with hysteria and affection are anything that would save this essay on dying from the dead calm.

Collective psychosis made Todd Phillips believe that he is a great director and saviour of the comic-book film genre, so in his new movie he came up with a feeble-minded courtroom drama, a comically flat psychothriller set in a prison, a psychotically stiff musical, allusions to a dark superhero film and a clichéd cherchez la femme romance, which is perhaps supposed to elicit compassion for the chaotic incel in the lead role. Of course, none of this is good and the individual genre elements don’t help. Joaquin Phoenix is definitely a great actor, as he lost a lot of weight for the role and constantly pretends to be a martyr because, yes, in this film he is primarily a victim of the will of others. Perhaps in the years to come, the Joker films will be seen as the greatest collective dissonance of recent years. This playfully toxic phantasmagoria is a good start to getting sober!

The worst of the trilogy so far. The third season does keep a linear narrative, which logically makes sense, but all in all it's a monstrous hybrid of Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones and a dark version of Harry Potter, unfortunately, far from taking the best of all three. It only skims the surface, it creates an intriguing fictional world full of potentially interesting people, names, monsters and settings, but it all goes to waste because the characters, their motivations and the creators' ability to guide the viewer effectively and with interest through the story don’t work. Something is wrong when we have to wait until the sixth episode for the whole thing to sort of finally start to make sense. And I'd rather not even go into too much detail about all the WTF moments that are almost unbearable. I would skip the entire penultimate episode and that freak-show of a ball is a disaster too. Where are the darkened Blaviken sets? If I'd known that the best of the series was going to happen in the first few minutes of the opening episode, I wouldn't have even started watching the whole project.

I have some mixed feelings about this one in the end. I found the plot quite uninteresting, there are only a couple of characters, the whole thing takes place slowly in one house and garage and it's not very engaging and attractive, on the other hand it's quite an interesting concept, the make-up effects were good and there was a little bit of grossness. It's a kind of demon body horror that's okay to endure, but unfortunately it's not a big hit. Pure average for me, but the demon definitely looked cool and unconventional, unfortunately it didn't appear much. 5/10.