MrHlad

I like movies like this a lot, and there hasn't been a classic action buddy comedy in a long time (no, The Nice Guys is not a classic action buddy comedy), so I was quite excited. And left the theater pretty disappointed. The Hitman’s Bodyguard always manages to score a few points on something, but after a while it trips over its own feet. Patrick Hughes does come up with and shoot some good action scenes, and a couple of them are excellent, but all of them are accompanied by completely inappropriate and ultimately annoying music. Samuel L. Jackson enjoys his role exactly as one would expect, but, unfortunately, Ryan Reynolds is usually next to him playing a depressed, boring and annoying buffoon. For a while it seems like an easygoing and funny film, only to switch at some points into a rather depressing and unnecessarily serious one. Well, the result is a mess that sometimes goes excellently, sometimes terribly and mostly kind of mediocre. After its clever and successful marketing, I expected a lot more.

I wanted to like it so badly. I was ready to enjoy the expected heartwarming drama and vise-like kindness, but unfortunately I got a film where that is completely absent. In fact, there's almost nothing there. It looks nice, and as far as the production design and costumes goes, I can't fault Barefoot at all, but in all other respects it's wretched. And a mess. The film goes from nowhere to nowhere, and although it is framed by a period and bites into some interesting conflicts, eighty percent of the running time is ultimately completely useless. Trying to cram in as many "flashbacks" as possible results in there being no time for anything and because of that, the humor doesn't work, the drama doesn't work, and the poignancy doesn't work. Most of the time I felt like someone had dropped two minutes of a scene that should have been fifteen minutes long, and I have little idea why I should be watching the boys tackle a classmate, that Eda might get a slap on the wrist, that the dad is at odds with his brother, and that a pigeon has gone missing. There's never time to pay attention to anything properly and the result is such a nice looking film where there's an awful lot going on, but for most of it you'll probably ask yourself why you don't really care about any of it. Too bad.

Marvel is going a little differently again. Spider-Man draws heavily on teen and high school comedies from the 1980s, and it's in the moments when the lovable Tom Holland tackles the problems of an ordinary teenager that the film is most entertaining. Spider-Man lags a bit in the action, which is unfortunately especially evident in the finale, but it's still a solid above average film. Plus, it can lean on the excellent Michael Keaton, whose villain is more interesting than he first appears. The two actors' scenes together are the strongest moments of the entire film. It's all the more disappointing that Jon Watts overstays his welcome unnecessarily and that he's a little short on the visual effects scenes. Still, it's a very fine Marvel film that tries to embrace the comic book genre a little differently than the previous ones. And I kind of like it that way.

151 minutes. Of that, some 60 minutes could go immediately. And cut the rest. And just leave the finale. And throw that out, too... The Fifth Transformers were a pain to watch. Michael Bay more or less does what you expect him to do, but otherwise it's a schizophrenic spectacle. At one point it feels like a kids' movie. then we get some big military sci-fi, followed by a teen comedy featuring Anthony Hopkins instead of Stiffler, and then there's some robot carnage for a while. Bayhem works properly. If it entertained you before, it will entertain you this time. Unfortunately Transformers loses on all other fronts. The characters fail to engage, the humour is hammy, the plot moves in weird jumps so that most of the time I had no idea what was happening on screen or whether Mark Wahlberg and Josh Duhamel were already buddies or still adversaries. And I really can't say that I remember anything positive from those two and a half hours. So, in the end, I was most impressed with the opening hour, which doesn't even try to pretend to have any purpose other than to introduce as many cute little robots as possible taking a toy store by storm. This cynical and pragmatic approach deserves respect.

Yeah, it's awesome. It took me a while to figure out why, how and what for, but I'm excited. Initially, what bothered me about Dunkirk was a certain impersonality and the fact that we don't really know anything about the characters, but Christopher Nolan clearly didn't want that and pushes everything through extremely intense scenes that can be both action-packed and atmospherically depressing. The director's staging games keep you entertained for a full hour and three quarters, and the aerial battles and the destruction of giant ships look absolutely breathtaking in IMAX. And even though it's not Saving Private Ryan (and it doesn't want to be anything like it), the feeling of every one of the three hundred thousand soldiers fighting for their lives is awfully strong. An absolutely breathtaking experience on the big screen, and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.

Well, it was nice to watch, yeah. There hasn't been a more spectacular-looking sci-fi film since Avatar, but visual effects aren't everything, and although Luc Besson manages to impress with the very first scene, he soon runs out of breath. In fact, it's as if he's decided not to tell a story, but merely to present a world in which another twelve films could take place. That world is really beautiful, mind, but when you have boring protagonists running around the screen, and when they actually intervene in the story rather accidentally, boredom is bound to set in sooner or later, no matter how good it looks. The main characters are unnecessarily out of the action all the time, and the more interesting and exciting things happen almost without their input.

They weren't kidding overseas, the third Planet of the Apes is another great spectacle. Matt Reeves continues the tone set by the previous installments and delivers a film that, while nearly two and a half hours long, isn't afraid to slow down and make time for scenes where the characters just sit around, talk, and you find out little details about them that make you worry about them instead of just waiting for the final set-piece. While last time the apes and humans were given similar space, this time it's almost all about Caesar, but Woody Harrelson has enough space to shine next to the digital (and of course amazing-looking) animal characters. I can imagine that the finale, with its slightly unexpected concept, won't quite suit some people, but paradoxically it makes all the ideas that have been hinted at several times throughout the film come through. Overall, War for the Planet of the Apes is exactly what we expected and hoped for. Plus, it confidently references the Charlton Heston version more than once, giving answers to questions one might not have thought to ask. A good and clever blockbuster. There's bloody little of that in cinemas..

An Indian girl was found murdered in the middle of Wyoming. An FBI agent arrives on the scene to find the killer with the help of a local tracker. Little does she know that this inhospitable land may be a bit too much for her to handle. Taylor Sheridan's directorial debut follows in the footsteps of his earlier films, and this time we get an atmospheric, gritty and manly piece where there's plenty of time for everything, but the slowly building atmosphere is ultimately so intense that you'll be biting your nails with suspense. And root for Jeremy Renner to win an Oscar.

Actually, it's good. The Mummy has its flaws, but Tom Cruise's charisma, the fast pace and the effort to introduce a new world for two hours easily entertains. The opening is reminiscent of Indy or the “Uncharted” games, the horror interludes work surprisingly well, and at times The Mummy straddles the line between PG-13 and R-rated. You probably won't be downright scared, but saying it’s horror adventure is not an exaggeration. There's more or less always something going on, and once they stop trying for funny interludes, it really paces just as you'd expect and hope after the trailers. In the end, it's a bit of a bummer that while The Mummy is a proper adventure flick, it unfortunately doesn't offer any scenes that you'll be excitedly describing to your friends and sending them to the cinema. As the start of a potentially interesting cinematic universe, however, it works without the slightest problem, and I'll happily be there next time.

I don't know. It didn’t bother me, but if I could sleep two hours longer instead of Wonder Woman, I'd probably consider it time better spent. The opening on the island of the Amazons is a feast for the eyes, the action sequences are fine until the Snyder-like CGI-mess kicks in, where everything bangs, lights up, slows down and looks like it's from a stupid video game. And Gal Gadot nails it, she's not a very good actress, but luckily Chris Pine is always next to her and is cool and funny enough to somehow pull it off. Unfortunately, the whole thing is at least half an hour longer than it should have been, the middle section with the shenanigans in London isn't nearly as funny as the filmmakers might have liked, and the messed-up finale sadly shows that Warner still hasn’t learned from the mistakes that plagued their previous films. And I honestly don't know if I'll be in the mood for it next time.