Piątek 12 Lut 2010, 8:14

06 02 10 - 20 06 10
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/87/02/478702/7304915.2.jpg?l=1260847395000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/31/89/493189/7303566.2.jpg?l=1259119388000
Iron Man, 90/100 (here
A Single Man, 950/100 here
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/84/26/478426/7294932.2.jpg?l=1264044196000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/00/47/460047/7226481.2.jpg?l=1245205818000
Everybody's Fine, 60/100 (Robert DeNiro is still not back to his form in the old days, but he is at least making an effort. He is very good as a widower who, abandoned by his kids despite planned family reunion, decides to visit all of them. The kids are played by Kate Beckinsale, Drew Barrymore and always outstanding and always reason enough to watch anything – Sam Rockwell. The story is very simple, easy to follow and familiar. There are no fireworks here, just usual everyday life situations, common and ordinary. But the story is heartwarming, the end is happy and the pace is dreamy, accompanied by lovely cinematography and music. A bit bland, but still – not a waste of time.)
Adventureland, 70/100 (This is very sweet, romantic and charming movie you can watch without getting bored. And that is pretty much it. Everyone in the cast is well cast, Jesse Eisenberg is adorable, Kirsten Stewart plays someone totally different from her Bella, but she is still pretty damn far from being a good actress. But she suits the role and she is convincing. . The only one who bugged me was Ryan Reynolds, but I simply don't like him. And the music – now that is just wonderful - „Don't dream is over”, „Just like heaven”, „Satellite of Love”….very good movie and definitely worth watching)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/09/41/460941/7325001.2.jpg?l=1272075759000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/97/23/209723/7311372.2.jpg?l=1263698588000
Unthinkable, 70/100 here)
Daybreakers, 30/100 ( here)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/62/20/476220/7279730.2.jpg?l=1250043803000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/26/14/322614/7303910.2.jpg?l=1263353352000
Triangle, 60/100 (here)
The Wolfman, 40/100 ( here
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/90/66/489066/7311590.2.jpg?l=1263871367000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/06/88/500688/7318192.2.jpg?l=1267672985000
Kick-Ass, 10/100 (I remember when I saw Mamma Mia and gave it 1/10. Then I came back home I looked around the box office results from all over the world and I said „well, this is what passes for entertainment nowadays”. And as I was watching Kick Ass, with usual starting point of 60 points, to which as the movie is progressing I'm adding or taking away the points, as it was going down and down and down again until it finally reached 1/10 10 minutes before the ending, to which I couldn't bring myself to and I still haven't seen this till the end, nor I ever plan to, I knew it was a bad movie, shockingly bad movie. But then I saw all the reviews, amazing reviews and couldn't believe it. It is official – the world has gone mad. First „Avatar” gets Golden Globe, then „The Hurt Locker” gets Academy Award and now this passes for a good movie. Dear reader, I'm not a virtuous person. When someone attacks I attack back. I'd anything for survival, I'd probably be capable of killing someone had the circumstances required it. But even I have to follow Roger Ebert and call this „morally reprehensible movie”. I get this is a comic book adaptation, so I'm ok with the complete and utter lack of any logic. I get that this is supposed to be comedy and dialogues and scenes are supposed to be absurd. But I cannot believe somebody actually shot it and other people liked it. And my favorite movie is Fight Club, I totally understand Mickey and Mallory Knox and I'd probably hug Patrick Bateman.
Example one – father shoots his daughter, She is wearing a bulletproof vest, sure, but her legs and head are unprotected. Yet they are both happy, father shoots her with smile on his face and she says he can do this again if she gets ice cream. I'm torn between declaring this „disgusting” or „disturbing”.I'm gonna go with “sick”
Example two – That same girl is being trained by her father to kill people, she kills around 40 of them in the movie, in a very horrific matter and she swears more than I do on my bad day. Why? 'Cause apparently critics will call this good movie and people will laugh.
Example three, this is my favorite one – that same girl is being beaten senselessly by grown man, spits blood, cries. Oh my god. This is so hilarious.I judge the critics who said it's a good movie, I judge that little girl's parents who let her to be in this „movie” and I judge all the ones who crawl on imdb and so on and gave it 10. But laugh all you want, the world is a jungle, violence is funny. Apparently no matter how lame it is.But how is this a good movie? The most terrible feeling the viewer can have whilst watching comedy is when he sees that something was supposed to be funny, but it is not. It's just plain embarrassing. It's bad enough when it happens once or twice in the movie, but here it happens all the time. I actually got a headache from this movie. And then I was angry I wasted perfectly good two hours on this.
As for the alleged originality – so I take it in the scene where our hero finally gets into his ridiculous costume and goes out to fight the crime and gets stabbed I should go „omg! It's so unique! I must vote it 10!”. Well I did, only in 100 scale. Was it supposed to be funny only because usually superheroes win? Very lame attempt, I was neither impressed nor amused.The movie is so chaotic, it's like jumping channels on tv for 120 minutes – nothing makes sense, everything looks cheap, nothing interests you. The film goes from mindless gore to unfunny intentionally funny scenes only to reach pathos and shocking brutality. Newsflash to the director – you are not Quentin Tarantino. Apparently he wants to be – he was the producer of “Snatch” and “Lock, stock…” both fantastic movies. Clearly he learned nothing.The soundtrack is another abomination. I read somewhere John Murphy is actually responsible for this, if so shame on him to, but why did he let them use his superb „Sunshine (Adagio In D Minor)”? I was fighting hard the urge to stop watching right there and then - it was painful to listen to it, especially that the scene during which it was played had definitely proved me right.I wanted to give it 0/10 but no. „Antichrist” needs to be the worst movie ever, Lars always needs to be on the bottom, trapped with this and „Mamma Mia”. Movie goers – let's all chip in and send Nic Cage some money, he surely seems to be desperate. Mark Strong is too good to be in this movie and the unforgettable McLovin's talent is underused. But with so many crimes the creators committed, let's not worry about misdemeanors.
PS: I wanna save you all good people from watching this so to give you the impression of how bad it was – Had this movie featured scene where Robert Downey Jr and George Clooney made out for five minutes, I'd still rate it 1.)
Chloe, 50/100 (This movie had a potential but one of the worst casting decisions I've seen blew it. That and implausible script, but sometimes actors are that good, you try hard not to notice how silly the story really is. But Amanda Seyfried has managed to screw up so badly, even actors like Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore at their finest cannot rescue „Chloe”.I have no idea who thought casting Seyfried as exclusive hooker would be a good idea. She doesn't have the looks for it. You know, how the reviewers write things like „an actress of unique beauty” when they don't wanna say someone is just hideous? Yeah, that's the case. She has nice body and very pretty hair, but out of thousands of hookers in the world the idea that this one would actually get clients is just preposterous. Bulging eyes don't make her interesting. She acts slutty in a vulgar way, common way, without giving viewer a hint of knowledge that she would actually be capable of making a man desire her. She was supposed to be mysterious and fascinating, instead that whole performance is forced and laughable. To call her 'whorish' in this film would be a compliment, I find the word itself to have more class than her performance. When trailer triumphantly says 'and Amanda Seyfried as Chloe” I guess it was supposed to drag all the „Mamma Mia” fans to the theater. Horrible, horrible casting. I mean are we really in such deep crisis that we don't have beautiful young actress? Is Scarlett and Angelina all we got? Amanda should stick to the roles like her work in “Big Love” and “Jennifer's Body”. This is, well, out of her league.It is almost insulting for me as a movie fan, that Liam Neeson and Julianne where in the same movie with Seyfried. They are both outstanding – from what I gathered “Chloe” shooting took place at the same time Neeson's wife passed away. He took a break and then came back to finish his performance in two days – this absolutely shocked me. He really is a tremendous actor to be able to create such a great performance in the time of enormous emotional distress, in the movie that mediocre. Moore is shining so powerfully in the film there are times in it that next Academy Award nomination is written all over. I cannot even give you the one particular scene that I find the best one in terms of her acting – the whole performance is so convincing and consistent.The story is absurd – wife is suspecting that her husband is cheating on her, so she pays money to the prostitute, in order for her to seduce him. Now, dear reader, you probably think what I was “she wants evidence, perhaps to make a killing in a divorce!”. No! She doesn't. All she wants, and now prepare for it, is to know what excites her husband, 'cause she misses him. If that's not pathetic, then I don't know what is. Anyways, the hooker lies, the wife cheats, the husband forgives, the idiotic ending follows. Cliché is chasing after cliché. There is however a lesbian love scene, which I am sure will be reason good enough for many to watch it. Given that I have not seen many scenes like that, I am not gonna judge it, but words of admiration for both actress for not requiring any body doubles or anything like that, especially for Moore, who after all is 50 years old, still so beautiful, that I have no idea how would any man prefer slutty little 20 year old over her.The movie has great atmosphere, the interiors, the clubs, the glasshouse, the cafes – it's all very cool and backed up with Mychael Danna's music – he is nowhere near of being a great composer, but it all fits nicely. However the best thing about the movie is that Chloe aggressively promotes band called Raised by Swans, of which two songs are featured in the movie. That band's two albums are so much better than this film.If you want to see good erotic thriller you will not be happy with "Chloe", the climate is there, the characters are there, but there are also too many distractions of poor quality. However, fans of Neeson and Moore will be very happy, if they won't let the anger of those two terrific actors staring in the movie like that, take over them.
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/19/56/271956/7253724.2.jpg?l=1243823283000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/38/15/133815/7321643.2.jpg?l=1269141894000
Katyn, 78/100 (In April of 1940 polish military officers were transported to the forest named Katyn, by Russians who after taking their names and belongings rounded them up, shot them in the back of the head and dumped their bodies into mass graves, after which they were covered in mud and dirt, pushed on the surface by bulldozers. 22 000 men died this way, one after another. The movie shows the massacre of 4410 soldiers from one camp – there were many camps all over the area and the executions were held through the series of days.
Andrzej Wajda is one of the most accomplished polish directors, who received honorary Academy Award for his films. His father died in Katyn, so you can only imagine how personal this movie was to the director.
It does not only show the massacre itself and the events leading up to it – the movie jumps ahead in time to show how Russians tried to blame Germans for what happened, how families of the officers waited for any kind of news about their loved ones and how far would the authorities go to break the spirit of people, that remained unbroken for so many years.
It shows the story of the wife of the general, who after disagreeing to sign a statement about massacre that yes, blamed Soviets, but in accusatory tone that German would probably use to gain upper hand, is forced to watch a movie from the forest where the corpses are dug up, where the bullets are taken out of skulls. Maybe even her husband's. It shows the story of the sister of one of killed soldiers, who couldn't even put a real date and location of his death on gravestone and when she tries to she is put in jail. It shows the story of wife, who waits for her husband, who she saw right after he was captured and who refused to run away, because he gave a word to protect his country.
The film begins right after the Russians enter polish soil – on one side of the bridge people are fleeing from Germans and suddenly from the other side run the ones, who are trying to escape the soviet army. Poland was basically torn apart – one force coming from West, another from East, after Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which two countries divided the Poland between them. Despite the promises and treaties nobody helped Poland, nobody came to the rescue. After the Germans entered the country they captured most of national elite – the professors, doctors, engineers who were sent to labour camps where they died all too soon in terrible conditions – also shown in the movie. Not only the officers were killed – their wives and kids had to hide, all the time awaiting news about what really happened.
The movie has some terrific acting and beautiful scenes like the one where general's wife is setting a table for Christmas's Eve and prepares a seat for her husband, who is in prison, captured by the enemy. She looks saddened at the horizon and then camera shows him, sitting in captivity looking at horizon too, except with a hopeful look. I loved how the story is not choosing any easy resolutions – it shows Russian officer who risks his life to save wife of polish captain and his daughter and polish officer, who survived the prison and was never transported to Katyn, who cannot go on knowing that so many others died.
The massacre is shown at the very end of the film and it is terrifying, it is so shocking that tears escape from eyes and you feel this pressure in your throat. The worst part about it, is that human beings, who had families, who had dreams, who had bravery are treated worse than animals – mechanically, in the same manner, without any distinction, treated without any, any respect or humanity. Maybe I have felt so crushed during this scene because it is part of my nation's history. But the events shown here are petrifying and after all, they really happened – also the scene is exceptionally well done. The movie finishes right after the massacre does and it leaves the viewer in what can only be called as the state of utter horror.
Russians took the responsibility for the massacre in 1990, 50 years after it happened. For those 50 years every person who dared to say the truth was either locked in jail or killed. But to this day they refuse to release the official orders, given by Stalin, with the names of the ones who carried them through. Perhaps the recent tragic events of 10th April will change things and move them into the right direction – the absolute truth. But the movie already is gaining a lot of respect and fame all over the world – many times it is this movie from which people find out for the very first time what really happened and they see bravery of ordinary men who refused to escape and who stood up for their beliefs and their country, even only by dying with dignity, in reality fighting till the very end.
Elizabeth - Golden Age, 68/100 (Nine years before „Elizabeth – Golden Age' premiered people all over the world got to see 'Elizabeth' and they all fell in love in Cate Blanchett – fair, porcelain, redhead with such force in her and so much acting talent everyone were knocked off their feet. Because Blanchett is, in fact, so interesting, she can carry a film all by her own. She can even make it a very good film, solely because of her performance. But one thing I cannot stand is when the movie has story, has characters and has brilliant actors. But what it doesn't have is soul.
The first part of the movie dealt with how Elizabeth became a queen, as a young girl, in love with someone who she cannot marry for political reasons, dealing with religious conflict her father and her sister (Bloody Mary – when will we get a decent movie about her?) provoked. The second part shows us mature Elizabeth with even bigger problems – despite two story arcs similar to first part, Elizabeth has to deal with great Spanish Armada and assassination plot that ends up in difficult decision to sentence to death royal blood, Mary Stuart.
Cate Blanchett is asked to do many things here. She is asked to portray a woman, who was one of the greatest rulers in the the history of the word, asking a simple pirate to kiss her. She is asked to portray her as jealous and vain. I was disgusted by some of the scenes, but not by Blanchett, nor by the character but how poorly the writers showed it and handled it. There is neither consistency here, nor respect for characters. Blanchett is too good for the movie and her performance, even in such poor circumstances is so powerful and similar yet in many subtle details different from her work In 'Elizabeth'. She has amazing moments – the speech she gives to her troops before the battle and when she shows how wonderfully temperamental Elizabeth really was - “I, too, can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare when you dare to try me!”. Not to mention the murder attempt where the shooter is staning in front of her with a gun and she just stands her in all her might and glory. I was surprised he actually took a shot, I don't think many people would.
What stuns me is that he story structure ad character development is poor but the dialogues are beautiful, there are so many memorable lines from the movie but my favorite is without any doubt “We mortals have many weaknesses; we feel too much, hurt too much or too soon we die, but we do have the chance of love.” spoken by Clive Owen.
He plays sir Walter Raleigh, pirate who comes back from settling Virginia colony in New World. He is the reason for many passionate looks and heated discussions, given how he makes both Elizabeth and the lady of her court, Bess (Abbie Cornish about whom we will surely hear more in the future, she has fantastic roles in her resume including “Candy” with late Heath Ledger and “Bright Star” for which she nearly got Oscar nomination this year). The characters of Walter and especially Bess are rather one dimensional, that is Walter would be completely uninteresting in this movie, had he been played by anyone else but Clive Owen. That man is amazing. No matter how dull his part is, how terrible the movie and how stupid the script are, he conquers. I truly think he is the most passionate actor working nowadays – he always seems so driven, so filled with emotions and anger. Everyone remembers his terrific work in “Closer” but he managed to make “Shoot'em up” worthy of my time. That's a real achievement. He brings so much color to the film and he has very interesting kind of chemistry with Blanchett. They portray restraint and respect beautifully.
Impressive cast includes Geoffrey Rush who reprises his fantastic role of sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's right hand, Samantha Morton as Mary Stuart, who is at the very least memorable, Tom Hollander from “In the Loop” and Pirates of the Caribbean films and Rhys Ifans in a role that reminded me of what Daniel Craig did in first film.
The movie is strikingly beautiful – the cinematography is enchanting, the costumes won Academy Award and the music is fantastic. The movie reminded me in style of “The Other Boleyn Girl”. It's a good thing that after the time of terribly done historic movies like “King Arthur”, “Troy” or – for the love of God - “Alexander” we at least received good looking productions with shots so beautiful, they look as if taken from some meticulously painted picture.
The movie is not even close to being as good as “Elizabeth” but it is decent and truly….every film that has Cate Blanchett in it is worth watching.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/71/54/297154/7174351.2.jpg?l=1220387078000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/91/75/259175/7134359.2.jpg?l=1249007039000
The Other Boleyn Girl, 66/100 (I remember I wrote about this movie, but I cannot find the review so I'm writing again. I loathe Natalie Portman. Her acting talent is…well I doubt if it even exists, to be honest. Her recent appearance in Ny, I love you was laughable, but this, what she does in the movie, I pity her, I so do. To take a role of Anne Boleyn, one of the most fascinating woman in the history of the world, the woman that forever changed the history of England, the woman who was the mother of one of the best rulers ever, the woman that was so amazing she was worth risking war with entire catholic world and to portray her in such a pathetic way…Whatever good Portman did in 'Closer' is now gone for me, apparently it was one accidental good performance. That, what she has done here, deserves a rainstorm of Razzies. Her performance is one of the worst things ever, especially because it is so uneven - terrible in the beginning, absolutely horrible during fortunetelling scene and rape (!) scene, shockingly pain-inducinging bad during final scenes but quite well when she is flirting with Henry. Portman cannot be called a good actress after something that shameful, I mean my god it was like she had taken the books about Boleyn and used them as toilet instead of reading them. On the other hand, infinitely more beautiful miss Johansson is fantastic. Now that's an actress. Mary Boleyn was ordinary and peaceful and Scarlett who doesn't have many opportunities to conquer the audience here , absolutely does so. She is so warm, so strong and so memorable here. For Johansson to do wonders with such a bland character and for Portman to screw up such an enormous opportunity…If I were director I'd fire Portman in the middle of shooting. Ironically her terrible acting makes the asinine script plausible - no wonder Henry preferred Mary. The movie's script is almost as bad as Portman - Peter Morgan who wrote wonderful 'The Queen' and fantastic 'Frost Nixon' disappointed me. The dialogues are awful, the story is so stupid, not to mention totally incorrect. The incest attempts never happened, nor did rape scene who is by the way moronic even in the context of the movie. Bana is ok as Henry VIII, he was well cast, so were David Morrisay and Jim Sturgess. So what Sturgess, Portman and Johansson look nothing like siblings. Portman is way too beautiful to play Anne - the perfect Boleyn, the best one ever was Natalie Dormer in the Tudors. The movie is worth watching because of wonderful cinematography, few well done scenes and to admire Scarlett. or to laugh and cry whilst seeing Portman's 'acting'.
A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, 60/10 (This a movie for fanboys and fangirls. There is no other reason to see this film. It is a story that I think, cannot interest anybody - young guy from a bad neighborhood escapes and his father resents him for that. Who cares? The acting ensemble is impressive - Chazz Palmintieri, Dianne Wiest, Rosario Dawson, Shia Labeouf and the sole reason I watched the film - always passionate, always fantastic Robert Downey Jr. But the casting is so much off - young Dito is played by Shia and older one by Robert. My dear Lord, I wouldn't be interested in Shia If I were the only woman on Earth and he was the only guy and mr Downey could have me in chains if he wanted to - in other words they do not look alike. Not to mention, yes I am aware of his past, but Downey Jr appears to be too classy to even pull this off - yes he doesn't look the most taken care of in this, but still he looks like a runaway model comparing to everybody else. It's not just about looks - he is just too subtle in behavior, like I said the casting is off, but he does what he can, with a little the script offers. If you are a fan of anyone in the cast, watch it, if not - don't.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/92/76/179276/7296960.2.jpg?l=1257046075000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/06/33/30633/6995229.2.jpg?l=1185190085000
Charlie Bartlett, 70/100 (When I heard Robert Downey Jr plays high school principal in this, I have decided - I need to see that. The idea of him being principal is so erotically charged I was in other state of consciousness watching this film. And it is quite a decent film to begin with - the story of troubled teenager who is dealing prescription drugs to his fellow students and becoming a self-proclaimed psychiatrist for hem is very warm and uplifting. The movie has a lot of funny moments - the best one including drunk Downey trying to shoot tiny boat in his pool, a lot of vivid characters and very good acting.)
American History, X, 78/100 (here)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/82/62/118262/7110703.2.jpg?l=1220927120000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/40/46/434046/7276411.2.jpg?l=1255660248000
Paris, Je t'aime, 79/100 (One of the most charming and real movies made about love. There are some real gems here - Coen Brothers segment with hilarious Steve Buscemi, Tom Tykwer's story with Natalie Portman, quick horror part about vampire with Elijah Wood, adorable segment about Oscar Wilde from Wes Craven and fantastic piece with Gena Rowland. The movie shows many faces of love - tragic one, like great segment with Miranda Richardson, love the gradfather has for his grandson, love of absent mother for an infant, crushes, love turned into mutual respect, love for dead wife, fascination and finally a single woman finding love everywhere in the world around her. Lovely movie, the kind of that makes you wanna say "I love you" to the people around you.)
New York, I love you, 50/100 (This is another movie in the series, right after „Paris, je t'aime” but it is awful comparing to that one. It was painful to watch at times, especially the segment with Shia Labouf and the one by ever so overrated Natalie I-love-being-bold-maybe-people-won't-notice-I-cannot-act Portman. There were some good stories - like the one with older couple, Orlando Bloom's one and especially Drea de Matteo/Bradley Cooper segment which was so good the moment I saw it, I stopped regretting watching this movie. The whole thing doesn't have the feel of real love in it and that was the worst. It's not funny, but worse yet - it is not romantic. That is something you can't forgive the movie that has word "love" in the title)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/14/32/461432/7293553.2.jpg?l=1255573656000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/04/28/430428/7266791.2.jpg?l=1254795806000
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, 72/100 (As much as I appreciate Terry Gilliam's movies they are extremelly tiring. This one was tiring, but at least not extremely. The art direction is beautiful and the effects as much as they show the movie didn't have a big budget are very nice. All the actors, except for pernamently bad Jude Law, do great job - Depp is hilarious in his quick scene, Farrell fits his segment perfectly. The always missed Heath Ledger is fantastic - he was very shy, reserved person and to see him in a role of someone like that was very surprising. Chritopher Plummer is great and Tom Waits plays the Devil - how awesome is that? But the real star is Liily Cole - she is absolutely terrific and she steals the show, I liked that the movie is set in modern times and the contrast between circus outsider and the real world is shown in few shots of the movie in a very subtle but powerful way. Definetly worth seeing.)
Surrogates, 60/100 (The movie had a lot of potential but the creators blew it. It's too short and too little is developed - how are babies born, for instance, was my question, since almost everyone use surrogates and don't interect normally. The effects look cheap but not tacky and the action scenes aren't terrible. The actors do decent job - Bruce Willis does the usual and Rosamund Pike looks gorgeous as always. The movie was entertaining but extremelly forgettable)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/20/21/32021/7222252.2.jpg?l=1225941875000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/64/66/156466/7312488.2.jpg?l=1264130480000
I am Sam, 65/100 (This is incredibly weak movie with two outstanding performances - Remember Tropic Thunder joke about Penn? Yes, he did it so well it actually makes you uncomfortable. You forget it's Sean Penn, you just do. During the runtime of this movie Penn is Sam and he is heartbreaking. He was awarded with nomination for Oscar, but Michelle Pfeiffer who is also amazing was overlooked - she creates such a memorable performance, of a strong, but deep down fragile lawyer - she is amazing in all her scenes, funny and insanely interesting - to add to that - my god, we don't have actresses that beautiful now. Show me one that is as beautiful as Michelle was when she was Catwoman back in the 90's. Stunning woman. The film also features the perpetually kidnapped Dakota Fanning and Laura Dern. If it wasn't for Michelle and Sean it would be 4/10, tv movie-quality about fight for the custody of the child. But those two save the film.)
Fantastic Mr Fox, 68/100 (The movie is incredibly cute, the creatures are adorable, the animation is skillfull and the jokes are very funny. But something is missing - after the movie is over you're asking yourself - This is it? Meryl Streep is very funny as Mrs Fox and George Clooney is just perfectly cast as charismatic, vivid and energetic Mr Fox - he is so great - yet to see animated fox and hear Clooney's steaming hot voice is rather disturbing. I'm not very into animated features, but if you are - go see it.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/42/56/464256/7307956.2.jpg?l=1264994683000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/58/18/465818/7301105.2.jpg?l=1258773961000
Shutter Island, 6,5/10 (I really wanted to like this movie, but I can't. It is not engaging, boring, has terrible, terrible editing - few days ago I stumbled upon porn movie on tv - god knows it had better editing, obnoxious music and one of the most far fetched twists I've seen. It's a shame too 'cause there are some terrific nightmare/flashbacks sequences - the editing is great here, I have no idea how that particuliar thing can be so uneven in one movie, the atmopshere is truly creepy and fascinating in those scenes and the cinematography is stunning. But the main plot is so convulted and tiring, you just don't care by the end of it. I was disappointed in Michelle Williams's work, I love her, but here she seemed to be reciting her lines, nothing more. Dicaprio does fine job, but whenever he uses the word 'fuck' for many years now, I cannot stop laughing and there is one truly hilarious scene of that kind with his trembling hand. Patricia Clarkson and Ben Kingsley are terrific, Mark Ruffalo on the other hand is completely bland. Had Robert Downey Jr, who was offered the part, played that role, things would be different. Worth seeing for the flashbacks and dream scenes. That's all.)
Alice in Wonderland, 7/10 (Another disappointement. I always said Alice is a dream material for Burton. Lately it seems that balls are falling off the great directors - first Jackson did "The Lovely Bones", so sweet it made me wanna vomit with candies and pink ponies and now this. Burton clearly was not thinking a lot about his own movie or he suffered some major head trauma because his Alice bounces from usual grotesque and morbid scenes to completely childlish resolutions and cartoonish, silly sequences. In the effect it is a movie….for nobody. Adults will find it too silly, kids will find it too scary, Burton's fans won't like the art direction which is so tacky and vulgar my eyes were hurting - and since it was in 3D used maybe in 5 scenes, my eyes were REALLY hurting. There is no atmosphere - nothing is fascinating, everything is just…fake. Jabberwocky was embarassingly poorly done, the creatures were animated in a very rookie way and the whole thing was just…painful to witness. Having said that, the dialogues are sublime and the tea party sequence is the most insane and fantastic thing since 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'. The actors were great too - Rickman made fantastic caterpillar, Michael Sheen was absolutely adorable as the white rabbit - god, I could just hold him and never let go, Depp was fine, but the whole weird romantic tension between Mad Hatter and Alice - Burton was never good in portraiting chemistry - even in 'Big Fish' we sorta have to believe the words the characters are saying - we don't see their love, Depp on the other hand never has chemistry with women - maybe this will change next year when we see him alongside Angelina dynamite Jolie in 'The Tourist'. However he is very suggestive and there was something incredibly eerie and disturbing in Alice/Hatter relation. Having said that his make up is awesome, but by the end of the film…well clearly Disney made Depp their whore. That dance reminded me of Slumdog's ending and that's never a good thing. Mia Wasikowsi was good as Alice, but there is not a single drop of passion, energy or charisma in that girl. But her looks were ok and she did interesting job. The best ones in the show are the queens - Red one, played with a lot of force by lovely Helena Bonham Carter and the best one in the whole movie - Anne Hathaway as the white one. She stole the show, she was absolutely fantastic and hilarious. I also loved Stephen Fry as the floating, disappearing Cheshire Cat - something so cool even Farmville borrowed it. The music by the always terrific Danny Elfman is memorable and main theme is very good. The movie is lovely, but it could have been so much more. But the actors…ah, it's a real treat to see their performances here.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/41/72/4172/7151777.2.jpg?l=1185190085000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/44/78/464478/7269031.2.jpg?l=1249180012000
Bicentennial Man, 6/10 (There are some things I cannot forgive. Infantile handling of the story and childlish resolutions. The movie deals with big, serious, complex ideas as if it was Disney fairytale. There is one scene where I actually held my breath and I swear to God if the creators would surprise me in that moment I'd rate it 9/10. Robin Williams's character, a robot ispiring to become human, asks the woman he loves why does she needs to die, why does she agrees on it. I seriously thought that if they will offer me something which is not dumb and cliche I'd be blown away. But the character replied 'Because that's how it goes'. Well, the movieis disappointing and kinda cowardly, just like its director Chris Columbus, who is good with handling kids, but it only goes so far. The film has some good scenes and Robin Williams is fantastic, but it is like a candy next to lavish meal AI is.)
District 9, 3/10 (I was struggling to get through this entire movie for 2 months. When it recieved 4 Academy Award nominations, including, watch out - best picture and best screenplay I just had to. This is like video game captured and sold as a movie. I don't get the praise the movie is getting, I simply don't. The story is cliche, the methaphors are as deep as my epic quest to find movies with naked RDJ or Clooney or preferably both of them together, the music is bad, the visual effects, of course nominated for Oscar, made me miss Watchmen and I hate Watchmen. The movie has 2 good scenes - the transformation of hero's hand into alien's hand and the scene where he is being forced to kill one of them. And that is it. Mindless shooting, complete lack of sympathy for aliens and the main character - but with all fairness the actor playing him did good job and complete lack of interest in the story - the first 30 minutes is one of the most boring pieces of cinema I've seen. What a weak year we had.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/33/28/33328/6933037.2.jpg?l=1190601661000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/08/62/862/7079823.2.jpg?l=1220927137000
Dogville, 6/10 (This is lovely. If anyone has ever had a doubt that Von Trier is a psycho and the last circle of hell is deserved for people who pay for his movies this movie proves that this is in fact the case. The first 100 minutes is good. It is very good in fact. But Lars just couldn't let a woman go and remained unharmed and not raped by tons of men. My god, he thought, she must be raped by whole fucking village! But you know what would show the audiance even better how much I hate women and the fact I probably didn't get laid in 40 years? Let's make her wear iron collar!!! The movie, when Lars fully takes over the story not only loses the good impresion it created over 100 minutes it also made me, once huge Kidman fan, despise her. An actress who goes to play lead role in Von Trier movies is a whore, pure and simple. Gainsbourg is the biggest one of them all, by the way. Dogville is by far one of the most despicable movies I've seen and one of the most moronical endings in movie history is a clear evidence for how sick the director is. Killing entire village, little kids and newborn because Kidman's character got raped and may I say - didn't even put up the fight and in the light of ending could have easily avoided it? Really? The most horrifying, though is the fact people claim that this is one of the 'most satisfying endings in the movie history'. Well I the only satisfying ending in the movie history involving Von Trier will be when he finally gets the medical attention he needs and hopefully a court order never to approach movie camera again. But the movie had potential and had it not been shot by a psychopath It could have been good. And you gotta love Patricia Clarkson and lovely Chloe Sevigny.)
Green Mile, 8,5/10 (The first time I saw the movie I cried my eyes out. The second time I only wept a little. The story is very beautiful and it has a great balance of scaring and amusing scenes - the exemple of first one - the electric chair execution with dry sponge being probably one of the most recognizable scenes in the history of cinema. The movie features wonderful and subtle acting from Tom Hanks, David Morse playing - finally - good guy, James Cromwell and Patricia Clarkson - both heavily underused and always mesmerizing Sam Rockwel. Beautiful movie about life and death, definetly a must see.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/99/78/209978/7172153.2.jpg?l=1219371962000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/07/34/734/6935618.2.jpg?l=1250736037000
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 9,5/10 (I don't like westerns, I don't like outlaws stories. I don't in particular love Pitt, but you gotta hand it over to the guy - except for Troy he didn't make one truly terrible movie. And I could try. I could try to summarize to you, dear reader all the reasons for which this is one of the best movies I've seen. I could try to find words, accurate enough to describe how beautiful the soundtrack and 'Song for Bob' (link – move your ass and if you are not going to see the film at least listen to this song) are and why I'm promptly going to update my list of best soundtracks ever made. But I think in both cases, I'd fail. This movie feels so complete and so perfect, that I dread the note I'd give to the unreleased Director's Cut. The acting by Academy Award nominated Casey Affleck, Brad Pitt, Sam Rockwell and Paul Shneider is outstanding. Everyone is so good, even Zooey Deschanel who appears briefly near the end of the movie. This movie is very similar in tone and style to two films I passionately hate 'No Country for Old Men' and 'There Will be Blood'. Now how come I hated those and loved this? Because TAOJJBTCRF has something they don't - character development - almost every character has some unique traits, there is a bond with the viewer - the narrator and tiny scenes show us very personal details about those people we are watching. And that is the key to success - the movie is very long, 160 minutes, but because of that character development the scenes where Jesse is trying to figure whether or not his associates are lying to him are so powerful - we care for both sides of the conflict. The shootings are amazing - there are not many of those, but they look so incredibly real and are filled with so many surprises and so much anticipation I was amazed. The title scene is hands down, one of the best scenes in the cinema history and I will fight every person who denies thar- I saw it 3 times in the row and I still cannot believe how perfect it is. The music by always unbelievably great Nick Cave and Warren Ellis and the cinematography give the film haunting, magical quality. This is one of the best films ever made. It is not supposed to be re-watched many times, like entertaining, quotable movies. But if you see it once, if you focus well enough you will have a feeling that you are watching the masterpiece.
Blade Runner, 4/10 (I don't like sci-fi unless there is good romance arc. I don't like old movies. But even with those two qualities I can recognize that this film is INCREDIBLY over-hyped and overrated. It was boring. It was pretentious. Harrison Ford was terrible and his character was completely forgettable. The music was awful and distracting, yes I know it was made by Vangelis and for some reason it's a big deal, but I hated it. I liked the art direction and about 2 scenes in this whole thing. I still don't like sci-fi and movies made in 80's)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/08/51/140851/7058666.2.jpg?l=1185190085000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/84/68/428468/7303576.2.jpg?l=1260847510000
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, 9/10 (I saw this movie 2 or maybe even 3 times in last two weeks, I saw it long time ago for the first time and I still can't get enough. One of us, devoted Robert Downey Jr's fangirls, once said 'KKBB is RDJ's fan's dream'.It truly is. The movie is amazing - it has crazy, meticulously planned story, fantastic acting, vivid characters and awesome dialogues, it is like Pulp Fiction of 00's. To summarize the story would be an impossible task, but everyone I'm sure will be impressed with how the story is presented and narrated - this is the only movie that seems to understand the viewer. It features Val Kilmer's best work, lovely Michelle Monaghan and Robert who does almost anything a fan can want him do to in this movie - he sings, he is romantic, he shoots, he smiles….only thing missing being the love scene. I'm dying for the news about sequel, because Kilmer and Downey are terrific together and the dialogue right after the scene Robert pees on the corpse - yes that is exactly how it sounds - is pure gold. Hilarious and incredibly clever movie)
Nine 3/10 (Oh…this movie is a fail. I hate Daniel Day Lewis, I think he is a terrible actor and looking at him makes me wanna punch him in the face. He failedso hard in 'There will be blood' for which of course he got Oscar, but here…my god. He cannot sing, his performance is weak and the character heplays made me pray for someone to detonate a bomb in the movie….again. Cruz is ok, but nominating her for anything, especially Academy Award? Are you kidding me? The only person worthy of nomination is Marion Cotilliard, who is that good she actually manages to create a great performance in a terrible movie, again, she did it in 'Public Enemies' too. Her second number is the best scene in the movie. Almost all actresses look terrible, especially Hudson and the only person who can
sing in the cast is…Fergie. The movie has no script, the songs are really bad - I wouldn't listen to soundtrack again even if somebody threatened me with a gun. And I loved 'Moluin Rouge' and 'Chicago'. Do yourself a favor - see Cruz's 'Call to Vatican' and Cotilliard's 'Take it all' on youtube and stay away from this movie.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/64/08/106408/6934757.2.jpg?l=1187145856000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/55/94/465594/7255934.2.jpg?l=1244341340000
The Terminal, 7,5/10 (This is one of the most uplifting and adorable movies ever made. It is moving, touching and amusing - not just in few scenes but throughout the movie. Tom Hanks plays a man trapped in terminal on JFK, he
does so with a lot of heart and he creates very good performance, his leading lady is the lovely Catherine Zeta Jones, but the true sensation is Stanley Tucci as heartless airport coordinator, who tries to get rid of Hanks's character. No matter how many times I see the film, I always cry, I always laugh and I always appreciate the warmth of it. It features some great scenes, yes it falls into pathos and cliches a lot, but it is not supposed to be an innovative drama, it is supposed to be light, heartwarming entertainment)
Julie and Julia, 7,5/10 (I never have appetite, but this movie made me so hungry. I like cooking, sadly I never have enough time to do that. The movie presents food in such and epic, loving way you really should eat something during watching it. In addition the movie is absolutely lovely. Stanely Tucci and Meryl Streep portray one of the most beautiful on-screen couples I've seen - so rarely we get to see happy mariages, filled with love, passion and mutual respect. Streep performance in this movie is fantastic, Swinton and Blunt are my win, but since neither is nominated I truly hope Meryl gets her 3rd Oscar this year. The movie also features adorable Amy Adams and another magical score from Alexandre Desplat.)
http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/48/83/494883/7300479.2.jpg?l=1261107191000http://gfx.filmweb.pl/po/78/55/107855/6921688.2.jpg?l=1187146146000
In the Loop, 8,5/10 (I loved that movie. There was considerable amount of hype going on on oscar buzz forum lately but when the movie managed to get nominated for best screenplay, the only 2 categories I respect, I just had to see it. This is the most quotable british comedy since Snatch, in the last 5 days I think I used Malcolm Tucker's words more than my own. Peter Capaldi should have been nominated for Oscar for this, forget fucking Walz for a minute. The dialogues are amazing, the movie is hilarious, the satire is poignant and the movie features many actors you know you saw somewhere, but you cannot remember where - the cast does amazing job and the film is an instant cult classic. Just go and see it)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 7/10 (For the life of me, I cannot figure out what all that fuss and excitement about this movie is about. Yes the screenplay is clever, yes the movie is well shot. Yes it asks interesting questions. But it commits the cardinal sin - you can't talk about love when the viewer doesn't see it. I saw love in Brokeback, I saw it in The Hours, I even saw it in New Moon. Winslet and Carrey have 0 chemistry together, which is not their fault. The screenwriter purposly made Carrey's character boring and incapable of having chemistry with anyone. I never know why they do that, they kill the movie for me right there. The question of erasing bad relationship is valid. I used to think I'd never do that, but I changed my mind. Fuck it, I would erase it with no hesitation. But the process of looking into character's brain, presenting his memories and manipulating them is very effective on screen. Great story, poorly developed characters)