Ostatnio ogladalem...

[Hydro]

Mo?e mi kto? wyt?umaczy? jak to si? dzieje?

By? mo?e dlatego ?e wi?kszo?? polaków ma inne poczucie humoru ani?eli to zaprezentowane w 'Green Hornecie'

[LelekPL]

Lub dlatego, że filmy, które podał TheBeatles mają szersze grono oddanych fanów, którzy oddają same 10tki, a niżeli remake serialu z lat 60-tych. Choć wysokiej oceny dla Starcia Tytanów już w ogóle nie rozumiem.

[TheBeatles]

By? mo?e dlatego ?e wi?kszo?? polaków ma inne poczucie humoru ani?eli to zaprezentowane w 'Green Hornecie'

Skoro ludzi bawi? Polskie komedie romantyczne...

[Roy_v_beck]

E tam, nie przesadzajmy, właśnie takie pół śmieszne są te żarty w "Green Hornet". Humor boi się przekroczyć dobrego smaku i ogólnie przyjętych granic przyzwoitości. To nie są dowcipy jak z komedii Kevina Smitha. Też się czuje taki trochę przerost formy nad treścią. Wszyscy tam starają się być zabawni, a za mało fabuły jest. No i zabijania nie ma. Brakuje trochę lekkości. Nie dziwię się, że Smith nie chciał tego filmu reżyserować. Studio dało za mało swobody twórcy i wyszedł ugładzony twór.

[Juby]

" For a few dollars more "(...)
Mój drugi ulubiony film zaraz po " The good, The Bad and The Ugly "

Miło, że mamy ten sam ulubiony film.

[Mihcim]

Świetny film. Mam nadzieje Juby że grałeś w Red Dead Redemption, będziesz czuł się jak w domu

[Juby]

Niestety, nie grałem, ale to chyba tylko kwestia czasu.



Szybcy i wściekli
Nie jestem jakimś fanatykiem projektów o takiej tematyce, ale jest to naprawdę fajna produkcja z dobrą akcją i masą ciekawych postaci. Krótko - dobry film.
Ocena: 7+/10

Za szybcy, za wściekli
Niezła kontynuacja, ale za bardzo sztuczna i kolorowa, no i mało związana z poprzednikiem (tylko postacią bohatera).
Ocena: 5+/10

Szybcy i wściekli: Tokio Drift
Średni filmik, praktycznie nie związany z poprzednikami i prawdę mówiąc dość nudny. Ale ścigają się fajnie, jeszcze więcej dupeczek, i niezłej muzyki. Można obejrzeć.
Ocena: 5/10

Szybko i wściekle
Tą część oglądałem rok temu, więc średnio ją pamiętam. Ale wiem, że trochę brakowało w niej akcji, a kiedy już była, to strasznie naciągana. Jednak czwórka jest chyba lepsza od dwóch swoich poprzedników.
Ocena: 5+/10

Szybka piątka
Jestem mile zaskoczony, bo poza pierwszą częścią, kolejne okazywały się praktycznie coraz słabsze, a w Fast Five właściwie zmieniono koncepcję serii (na lepszą).
Już nie chodzi o jak najwięcej komputerowo wykreowanych pościgów kolorowymi i szybkimi furami, tylko o prawdziwą akcję (przy tym nie głupią i dużo mniej naciąganą niż np. w Bad Boys II).
Mamy świetne pościgi, tylko jeden ale za to bardzo dobry wyścig, zajebistą scenę walki, oraz spektakularny finał. Rzadko w kinie można tak dobrze spędzić czas i się nie zanudzić, a Szybcy i wściekli 5 to zdecydowanie najlepsza odsłona serii, fajnie powiązana z poprzednikami (praktycznie wszystkie postacie z czterech poprzedników występują w piątce), a scena po kończeniu zwiastuje niesamowity finał, na który na pewno także się wybiorę do kina!
Ocena: 8/10

[LelekPL]

Ja idę w środę, we wtorek jeszcze na Source Code. To powinien być dobry tydzień. Mam nadzieję, że walka The Rocka z Dieselem spełni oczekiwania, po tym jak czułem niedosyt po Expendables.

[Juby]

Mnie tam bardzo usatysfakcjonowała, tym bardziej, że zaskoczyło mnie zupełnie kto wygrał.

[Hydro]

Mnie zaskoczy? w ogóle rozwój akcji zwi?zany z postaci? któr? gra? The Rock, ale zgadzam si? z Jubym, film bardzo dobry, nie ma miejsca na nud?, a ma?a ilo?? po?cigów wysz?a filmowi na dobre (ale fina? miazga :]). Równie? 8/10.

Co do 'Source Code' -- mi?e zaskoczenie, film tematycznie troch? przypomina 'Incepcj?'. Przekonuj?cy Gyllenhaal (obawia?em si? ?e b?dzie gra? sztucznie) i ?liczna, cho? troch? irytuj?ca Michelle Monaghan. Lubi? filmy trzymaj?ce widza w napi?ciu i bez zbytnio przewidywalnej fabu?y a 'Source Code' takim filmem si? okaza?. Jedyne do czego mog? si? przyczepi? to muzyka - dosy? nijaka. 8-/10
Post Merge: 08 Maj  2011, 22:37:14
Dla tych którzy wyszli z sali od razu na napisach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmMvNl_vzrA

No to zapowiada si? cz??? 6

[LelekPL]

The Fast and the Furious
Nic specjalnego. Praktycznie ten sam film co na fali z Keanu Reeves i Patrickiem Swayze, co jest na plus, tylko bardziej w stylu MTV i dla mi?o?ników samochodów, co jest na minus. Nikt aktorsko nie b?yszczy, ale dla ma?o wymagaj?cego widza co? tam si? dzieje, dla m??czyzn mamy Jordane Brewster i Michelle Rodriguez, a dla kobiet Paula Walkera. S? do?? udanie zrobione w?tki romantyczne, a fani motoryzacji dostaj? to co chcieli i to z nawi?zk?. Muzyka odzwierciedla ducha tamtych czasów, ale na dzie? dzisiejszy wygl?da to wszystko do?? tandetnie. Jest w tym filmie te? chyba dopiero drugi samochód, po zobaczeniu którego nawet ja stwierdzi?em, ?e bardzo chcia?bym nim si? przejecha?.
Ocena: 5,5/10

2 Fast 2 Furious
Brak Vina Diesela mocno odczuwalny jest tutaj. Przez to, ?e nie ma naturalnej kontynuacji w?tków, film przypomina raczej spin-off czy te? nieudany remake filmu, który sam by? nieudanym remake'm innego filmu. Samochody s? komputerowe, i wszystko wygl?da jeszcze tandetniej ni? poprzednio.
Ocena: 3/10

Tokio Drift
Chyba najmniej zapadaj?ca w pami?? cz??? ze wszystkich. Poza krótkim cameo Vina Diesela nie ma nic wspólnego z poprzednimi cz??ciami, g?ówny bohater jest ma?o interesuj?cy, a sama fabu?a ma?o wci?gaj?ca. Nie ogl?da si? go tak dobrze jak cz??ci pierwszej, ani nie jest tak z?y, ?e a? dobry, jak cz??? druga. Po prostu egzystuje w tej serii.
Ocena: 3/10

Fast and Furious
W ko?cu dostali?my powrót do w?tków z pierwszej cz??ci i ponownie spotykamy Briana i Doma. Ich ?cie?ki krzy?uje ?mier? jednej z g?ównych bohaterek co nieco czyni t? histori? bardziej nap?dzan? bohaterami, a ni?eli po?cigami czy scenami akcji. Nie s? to jednak zbyt przejmuj?cy bohaterowie, a film potem sam na nowo przemienia si? w mokry sen widzów TVN Turbo. Na ca?e szcz??cie film jest ju? bardziej nowoczesny, porzuca komputerow? tandet? z pocz?tku wieku i korzysta wi?cej z bardzo dobrych scen kaskaderskich przez co jest ca?kiem emocjonuj?cym widowiskiem i powrotem do formy.
Ocena: 5,5/10

Fast Five
Holy shit was this a surprise. I was never a huge fan of the series, I liked the first part for the rip-off of Point Break that it was, just because it’s better to have a movie like that than to have it based on something lame. As for the next three parts I couldn’t care less, so I really wasn’t expecting much from this movie, other than seeing a good fight between Diesel and Rock. I got that… and much more.

As a person who’s not the least interested in cars and street racing I’m glad they kind of switched the storyline from being a gear-head fest into a heist flick, which for me, ironically, made the characters more likeable and more relatable. Right from the start, we find Brian and Mia on the run from the authorities, struggling to figure out their lives on the refuge. I thought this was a nice touch that brought a little realism in this over the top movie and had this human aspect. Sure it gets sidetracked very quickly but I thought it was a nice start to the action and after that, action is exactly what we get. The first action set piece is one of the most remarkable film achievements ever and it’s not only my opinion but the entire audience I saw this with. It was so confusing that during it I didn’t know whether it’s horrible or great, because it was so silly yet awesome that my reactions varied immensely and so did the crowds. By the end some people laughed, some applauded, I did both. It perfectly set the tone for the entire movie, since we got incredible action set pieces, great chase scenes on the roofs of Rio’s favela and mostly good comedic reliefs.

I’m gonna try to skip through the acting bits, because there’s nothing much to write about. Either it was bad, ridiculously bad or okay for this sort of movie. Vin Diesel gives you what you expect, which is not good. However he suits this sort of movie, thanks to the physicality he brings to his role, which not many actors can emulate on screen. Some would even say that he is the franchise and since he’s not worse than in previous installments I’d say it works. Except for the physical part, the same thing can be said about Paul Walker, who still can’t find the proper character that would help him find the range he showcased in Running Scared. Sung Kang was one of the stand outs of the movie, as he portrayed a very likeable member of the group that brought some character and vulnerability to this macho adventure and I think him getting more screen time at the cost of appearances of some other characters, like Roman’s, would be beneficial. Same thing about Elsa Pataky who along with Jordana Brewster and Gal Gadot spark up the screen with their looks and sexiness. The highlight of the movie is, of course, Dwayne Johnson. Now I was never a fan of his. I know the history of wrestlers turned actors and I always look down on them, for good reasons I believe, and for the most part of his career he didn’t do anything to change that opinion. Sure, it was obvious right from the start the he has more talent than others before him but he never lived up to it, especially in action roles. Here, however, he delivers like only the best have done before and I’m talking about Schwarzenegger’s and Stallone’s caliber. He plays this hardnosed cop with his eyes set firmly on the prize. I heard this was a role written for a Tommy Lee Jones performance and you see shades of that, but also we get this monstrous guy that seemingly cannot be stoped, which makes him that much more  threatening and interesting. I really hope we’ll get a spin-off set around this character because he definitely deserved more screen time.

I need to praise the music and visual aspects of the movie as well. Even though it’s not my usual cup of tea, I must admit the music fit perfectly with this Brazilian scenery and made the whole experience even more enjoyable. I don’t speak Portuguese but the rap music seemed more believable just because how dangerous the streets of cities like Rio de Janeiro can be. As for the visuals I have to applaud Justin Lin for switching from CG cars in 2F2F to more practical effects, where many of the sequences were obviously filmed and where stuntmen did a heck of a job. There were some CG flames and explosions but for the amount of footage done on film it’s really nothing to be mad about.

All in all this is the summer movie to go to, if you want an action packed adventure that will be fun and exciting at the same time. I ?m glad the critics joined in on the fun, since there’s practically nothing they normally look forward to, with some painful line deliveries and cliches. Yet none of this things matter when you’re thoroughly entertained and with original action sequence ideas you get something that you’ll happily look back on after this year has passed. Fast Five really feels like a true action packed summer blockbuster of old and there’s no way I’m going to nitpick this movie any more.
Ocena: 7,5/10

[Juby]

Piraci z Karaibów: Klątwa Czarnej Perły
Najlepszy film przygodowy od czasu trylogii Indiana Jones. Znakomite postacie, scenografia, charakteryzacja, kostiumy, efekty specjalne, humor, muzyka. Kino rozrywkowe z najwyższej póki.
Ocena: 8+/10

Piraci z Karaibów: Skrzynia umarlaka
Najlepsze efekty specjalne w historii kina (Davy Jones), jeszcze więcej akcji, jeszcze więcej humoru, ale trochę zbyt to parodyjne i naciągane, dlatego trochę gorszy od jedynki.
Ocena: 8/10

Piraci z Karaibów: Na krańcu Świata
Film zrobiony za szybko i chyba bez scenariusza. Mniej humoru, więcej spektakularnych efektów specjalnych i nielogicznych scen. Ogólnie jest to za długie i słabe zakończenie świetnej trylogii.
Ocena: 6/10

Piraci z Karaibów: Na nieznanych wodach
Największy zawód roku póki co. Jeżeli ktoś narzekał na Indiana Jones 4, to lepiej niech sobie to odpuści, bo czwórka piratów jest filmem robionym tylko dla kasy z niepotrzebnym 3D, znikomą ilością poczucia humoru, słabą fabułą, idiotyczną i naciąganą akcją (a najsłabszy był finał), no i w ogóle to już nie to samo. Mieli wrócić do genezy piratów, a przez to nawet ciekawych efektów nie ma, tylko Depp i Rush ratują ten pseudo film...
Ocena: 4+/10

[isild87]

Czyli jednak czwarta czesc Piratow najslabsza, hmm?
Jesli tak to chyba nie ma sensu robic piatej,bo ile razy mozna odgrzewac ten sam kotlet...
Aha,a teraz moje przemyslenia na temat ostatnio obejrzanego filmu:

Udreczeni  (Haunting in Connecticut)  7/10

Klimatyczny choc niezbyt straszny film o nawiedzonym domku - pod wzgledem tematyki bardzo podobny
do "Amityville Horror "(tamten jednak byl w jakims sensie straszniejszy) a jadna scena z kolei nieodparcie skojarzyla mi sie z obrazem "Inni" z Nicole Kidman.
Mimo to oglada sie go naprawde dobrze, choc watek chorego syna mogliby sobie darowac - to bylo zbyt melodramatyczne jak na gatunek pt. "film grozy"
Aktorsko jednak wszyscy wypadli wiarygodnie ,no i cala historia jest ponoc na faktach ,chociaz w to nigdy nie warto do konca wierzyc 

[Roy_v_beck]

Czwarta część piratów stoi na takim samym poziomie jak poprzednie. Fakt, że 3D tylko męczyło, no i niektóre elementy były zbyt fantastyczne. Aczkolwiek prócz tego to bardzo fajnie się oglądało. Ładne krajobrazy, właśnie dialogi zabawniejsze niż w poprzedniej części, no i postaci nie tak sztampowe jak Orlando i Keira. Na pewno warto obejrzeć ten film, kino rozrywkowe na najwyższym poziomie - 8/10.

[LelekPL]

Londy?ski bulwar - niez?y dramat romantyczno-gangsterski. Przypomina? mi nieco korea?ski S?odko-gorzkie ?ycie, jednak by? troch? bardziej ckliwy jak dla mnie, a to nie jest plus. Co nie zmienia faktu, ?e Colin Farrell zaliczy? kolejn? dobr? rol? i wida?, ?e granie w filmach gdzie? poza Hollywood mu s?u?y, gdy? jest ewidentnie najwi?ksz? zalet? tego filmu. Zaraz za nim postawi?bym kreacj? Raya Winstone'a i muzyk? w filmie. Film na prawd? warty obejrzenia. Ocena: 7/10

All-Star Superman - nie robi takiego wra?enia jak filmy animowane z Batmanem, ale jest na pewno du?o lepszy od Superman: Doomsday. Momenty, Clarka z Lois s? zalet? tego filmu, ale cz?sto s? przerywane jakimi? kosmicznymi pierdo?ami. Mimo wszystko Superman jest na tyle postaci? wci?gaj?c? a w tym filmie romantyczn?, ?e by?em to wszystko w stanie wybaczy?, w przeciwie?stwie do takiego Emerald Knights na przyk?ad. Ocena: 6/10

Rashomon - klasyka Kurosawy, która obejrzana dzisiaj nie robi ju? takiego wra?enia, ale nie mo?na jej odmówi? bycia pionierem w wielu elementach sztuki filmowej. Sama historia szokowa?a te? pewnie bardziej w latach 50-tych ni? obecnie, ale nadal przedstawia jeden z najbardziej ohydnych wyst?pków i ró?ne "propozycje" na to jak co? takiego mog?oby wp?yn?? na wszystkie postacie. ?wietna scena ko?cowa i do?? przera?aj?ca do dzisiaj zjawa to kolejne aspekty filmu, które pozostan? ponadczasowe. Ocena: 7,5/10

Tron we krwi - mój ulubiony film Kurosawy, wykorzystanie Shakespeare'a w staro?ytnej Japonii okaza?o si? genialnym posuni?ciem, a rozmach z jakim ten film zosta? zrobiony robi wra?enie do dzisiaj. Najwi?ksza zalety to na pewno zdj?cia i rola Toshiro Mifune, który troch? przesadza? w Rashomonie, to tutaj jest po prostu fenomenalny. Podobnie jak aktorka, która gra?a odpowiedniczk? Lady Makbet. Najlepsza adaptacja tej sztuki jak? do tej pory widzia?em. Ocena: 9/10

Siedmiu Samurajów - problem tego typu filmów jest taki, ?e je?li robisz film z nastawieniem na wielkie widowisko i najlepsze dost?pne efekty, to musisz si? liczy? z tym, ?e za par? lat (nie mówi?c ju? o 50ciu) ten aspekt sztuki filmowej starzeje si? najbardziej i nie ma mowy o ponadczasowo?ci. Siedmiu cierpi na ten sam syndrom, ale na ca?e szcz??cie Kurosawa nie zostawi? nas tylko z bitwami, ale rozpocz?? film od skupienia si? nie tylko na g?ównym bohaterze, nie tylko na siedmiu samurajach, ale tak?e na poszczególnych mieszka?cach wioski i podpowiada nam czemu powinni?my si? nimi przejmowa?. Kiedy niektórzy trac? ?ycie jest to nie tylko niespodziewana dla widza w dzisiejszych czasach ale tym bardziej poruszaj?ce emocjonalnie. Znowu ?wietnie spisa? si? Mifune, ale ten film nale?y w do Takashi Shimury, który idealnie odda? stoickiego mistrza i stratega grupy. Kiedy dochodzi do walki, film zaczyna troch? nudzi?, ale na ca?e szcz??cie widz dostaje po twarzy na otrze?wienie nie raz i nie dwa. Ocena: 8/10

13 Assassins - remake filmu o tym samym tytule, re?ysera paru z najbardziej krwawych filmów jakie zobaczycie, Takashiego Miike. Mimo, i? jest to remake innego filmu, to ogl?da si? go jak uwspó?cze?nion? wersj? Siedmiu Samurajów. Na pocz?tku jest na tyle dobry i na tyle dobrze zrobiony, ?e by?em w stanie wystawi? mu lepsz? ocen? od klasyka Kurosawy. Owszem postacie nie s? ju? tak uwypuklone jak w tamtym filmie, ale i stawka jest wieksza i r?ka re?ysera ?miem stwierdzi? te? lepsza, a aktorzy wcale gorzej nie graj?, mo?e poza g?ównym czarnym charakterem, który jest do?? mia?ki. Jednak, gdy dochodzi do fina?u, re?yser wraca do korzeni i nie jest to na korzy?? filmu, robi si? krwawo, absurdalnie i groteskowo. Ludzie umieraj?, biegaj? p?on?ce byki, koszmarne CGI tu i tam, no po prostu Ichi Morderca 2. Tak si? w tym pogubi?em, ?e ocena spada a? o dwa stopnie, a mog?aby i wi?cej, gdyby nie bardzo solidne i skromne zako?czenie. Ocena: 7/10

Rabbit Hole - film, który bardzo cicho gdzie? przemkn?? w poprzednim roku, ale jest bardzo solidnym kinem dramatycznym. Ba, nie tylko jest kolejnym wyciskaczem ?ez, ale te? potrafi dos?ownie chwile pó?niej rozbawi? do ?ez w do?? brutalny i czarny sposób. Bardzo dobre role Aarona Eckharta i Nicole Kidman. Na pewno móg?by by? mniej standardowy i przewidywalny, bo pomimo, i? jest dobry, to ma si? wra?enie, ?e gdzie? ju? si? go widzia?o. Ocena: 7,5/10

W kr?gu z?a - klasyka kina francuskiego z ?wietn? rol? Alaina Delona. Szczerze jest to film, który poza rol? g?ówn? i komisarza policji, imponuje tylko ?wietnymi zdj?ciami. Ale imponuje niesamowicie, styl z jakim Melville przedstawia nam ten film to Francja w czystej swojej esencji, po prostu klasa. Sama fabu?a jednak jest ma?o interesuj?ca, a sekwencja w?amania dzisiaj nie robi ?adnego wra?enia. Jednak film mi si? podoba?, musz? przyzna?, ?e od razu chcia?em by? jak Delon. Ocena: 7/10

Gabinet dr Caligari - ponownie niefortunnie musi mi si? trafi? film, który do?? oczywistym jest dzisiaj b?dzie mia? problemy z szokowaniem czy straszeniem widzów. Jednak skoro Metropolis mo?e by? ponadczasowe, to wymagam te? tego od innych filmów z tamtej epoki. Nie jest tak dobrze, ale dzisiaj film przynajmniej zyskuje dodatkow? zalet?. Horror w filmie niemym po prostu bije magi? kina, niespotykan? w dzisiejszych czasach. Dla kinomana jest to co? bardzo wa?nego, a i dekoracje, stroje i gra aktorska tylko to uczucie podsycaj?. No i filmowi na pewno nale?y si? dodatkowy punkt za wprowadzenie "twistu" na ko?cu, co musia?o kiedy? nie?le zbi? z tropu widzów. Ocena: 7/10

Blow Out - nieco zapomniany film De Palmy, a zw?aszcza Travolty. A dziwne, bo na pewno jest nie mniej imponuj?cy ni? wiele z pó?niejszych dokona? tej dwójki. Jeden z lepszych thrillerów lat 80-tych, je?li nie najlepszy w ogóle! Bardzo ciekawy koncept, ?wietne zdj?cia, Travolta w ?yciowej formie i bardzo fajne zako?czenie. Ocena: 9/10

Sta? przy mnie - jeden z lepszych filmów o dzieciach, ale nie do ko?ca dla dzieci, jaki powsta?, a ja widzia?em go dopiero niedawno. Rzeczywi?cie jest to bardzo udany film nieco przygodowy, ale zdecydowanie bardziej opowiadaj?cy o dorastaniu. M?odzi aktorzy sami imponuj? dojrza?o?ci? na ekranie i wprawiaj? widza w dobry nastrój, a doros?ym przypominaj? lata dzieci?stwa. Zabawny, magiczny, wci?gaj?cy, dojrza?y. Ocena: 8,5/10

The Man from Nowhere - azjatycki Cz?owiek w ogniu i musz? przyzna? nie mniej poruszaj?cy. Film cierpi nieco na nadmiar akcji, wsadzonej aby zach?ci? wi?ksz? liczb? widzów, a to sceny pomi?dzy s? najwi?ksz? zalet?. No i mamy to co wielu mi?o?ników kina zemsty lubi?, jak równie? co? dla fanów klasycznych westernów. Film jest mieszank? obu gatunków, tyle, ?e osadzon? w wspó?czesnej Korei, a na dodatek posiada elementy thrillera. Aktorstwo nie na najwy?szym poziomie, ale sama fabu?a potrafi poruszy? jak i pobudzi?. Na prawd? warto zobaczy?. Ocena: 8/10

I Saw the Devil - ten film ju? nied?ugo pewnie stanie si? klasyk? kina dalekiego wschodu. Chyba nikt nie potrafi obecnie robi? lepszych filmów o zem?cie, a ni?eli Korea?czycy, a ten film jest po prostu ich majstersztykiem. ??cz?c ze sob? klasyczny dramaturgi? Oldboya, akcj? Bourne'a i groz? Siedem jest to jeden z najciekawszych filmów ostatnich lat. ?wietne zagrany, obie role pierwszoplanowe s? wr?cz wybitne, jedna jest niezwykle poruszaj?ca, ale te? trójwymiarowa, a druga to jeden z ciekawszych filmowych potworów, bez uromantycznienie, bez nadania cech inteligencji czy wy?szych idea?ów. Mamy tu po prostu psychopat? z krwi i ko?ci. Zdj?cia s? fenomenalne, a i suspens jest niezwykle odczuwalny. Film móg? by? troszk? krótszy, a i muzyka bardziej ciekawa, ale i tak jest to film rewelacyjny. Ocena: 9/10

Paul - kolejny film z duetem Forst i Pegg. Tym razem z nowym re?yserem, ale z przyjemno?ci? mog? stwierdzi?, ?e ch?opacy znowu daj? rad?. Chemia mi?dzy t? dwójk? jest unikalna i nadal tworz? najlepszy obecnie duet komediowy. Ten film jest nieco bardziej odtwórczy od poprzednich, ale te? potrafi w bardzo udany, a i momentami wysublimowany sposób odda? ho?d klasykom sci-fi. Nie jest te? tak zabawny, ale s? za to jest troszk? bardziej przygodowy. Dla wszystkich mi?o?ników wczesnego Spielberga, czy Gwiezdnych Wojen (i Oleju Lorenza ) jest to wed?ug mnie, pozycja obowi?zkowa. Ocena: 7,5/10

The Sunset Limited - film nieco przypominaj?cy kapitalny 12 gniewnych ludzi. Zdecydowanie nie jest tak dobry, ani wci?gaj?cy, ale formu?a podobna i temat niezwykle interesuj?cy. Dwie konkuruj?ce perspektywy, w?a?ciwie dwa ró?ne ?wiaty w kolizji intelektualnej i filozoficznej, a to wszystko okraszone ?wietnym aktorstwem pana Jonesa i pana Jacksona. Nieco bije po oczach nadmierna religijno?ci? czasami, ale mimo wszystk jest to film wart obejrzenia, chocia?by dlatego, aby opowiedzie? si? po której? ze stron. Ocena: 7,5/10 - btw, ja jednak by?em po stronie Lee Jonesa.

Miasto ?ycia i ?mierci - jeden z lepiej zrobionych filmów tej dekady i nie mam co do tego w?tpliwo?ci. Zdj?cia s? fenomenalne, nawo?uj? nieco do Listy Schindlera, a i zbrodnie dokonywane na ekranie s? równie obrzydliwe. Nie wiem na ile jest to film propagandowy, bo nie jestem za bardzo obeznany, jak wi?kszo?? polaków ze zbrodniami Japo?czyków w Nanking, ale tak czy siak, jest to piekielnie mocne i dopracowane kino, które bije po twarzy. Momentami a? za mocno i co raz to kolejny brak pozytywnych postaci nieco zaczyna m?czy?, ale nie zmienia to faktu, ze film na pewno musi zosta? obejrzany. Ja po nim, wstydzi?em si? za to, ?e jestem m??czyzn?, a tego si? nigdy nie spodziewa?em. Ocena: 8,5/10

Too Big to Fail - film telewizyjny, ale zas?uguj?cy na szczególn? uwag?. Nie tylko ze wzgl?du na niesamowicie imponuj?c?, ale tak?e idealnie dobran? obsad?, ale te? ze wzgl?du na to, i? wraz z zesz?orocznym dokumentem Inside Job, niezwykle dobrze edukuje na temat tego co sta?o si? podczas ostatniego kryzysu gie?dowego. I nie jest to nic mi?ego, bo oba filmy nie chowaj? ciosów, i pokazuj? jak grupka chciwych bankierów, poprzez patrzenie tylko i wy??cznie na w?asny interes jak równie? niekompetencje, doprowadzi?a do ?wiatowej recesji. Film jest na tyle dobry na ile telewizyjny film o prawdziwych wydarzeniach mo?e by?. Nie jest to film z cyklu prawdziwe historie, ale te? czasami zastanawia?em si? czy wersja fabularna by?a a? tak potrzebna. Mo?e w r?kach Finchera. Ale i tak nie jest ?le. Ocena: 7/10

Kill the Irishman - bardzo fajny film gangsterski, opowiadaj?cy prawdziw? histori?. I to niezwykle fascynuj?ca. Powiem wam, ?e to co si? dzia?o w Cleveland w latach 70-tych to by? dla mnie szok. Jak zobaczycie film i us?yszycie ile wybuchów dosz?o tam jednego roku z?apiecie si? za g?ow?. Film jest bardzo dobrze zagrany, przez wi?kszo?? ?wietnej obsady (Val Kilmer troch? ?pi tutaj). Za bardzo stara? si? by? jak Goodfellas i nie wysz?o to za bardzo, jest troch? odtwórczy, tani i nieco przejedzony, ale i tak dla fanów tego gatunku obowi?zkowy. Najlepszy od czasów American Gangstera, a g?ówny bohater chyba jeszcze bardziej interesuj?cy. Ocena: 7/10 (mimo wszystko dokument na ten temat by?by jeszcze ciekawszy)

When a Stranger Calls (1979) - film, który zainspirowa? pierwsz? scen? z Krzyku Wesa Cravena. I od razu wiemy dlaczego, gdy? otwarcie jest jedn? z najbardziej przera?aj?cych scen na filmie. Tym bardziej imponuj?ce, ?e film wcale nie jest slasherem, a przynajmniej nie przez wi?ksz? cz???, ale jego wp?yw na gatunek by? ogromny, równie wielki co Halloween. Pó?niej film robi si? bardziej standardowy jak na tamte czasu i nudny, zmienia si? w zemst? i na?ladowanie nieco Normana Batesa. Jednak koniec znowu mrozi krew w ?y?ach. Wart na pewno obejrzenia tylko dla pocz?tku i ko?ca i us?yszenia tych ju? kultowych s?ów ze s?uchawki. Ocena: 6,5/10

Hesher - udany dramat familijny, piekielnie udany. Przy stereotypowych problemach w tego typu filmach, nagle pojawia si? jak ?ywio? Hesher i tworzy z tego niezwykle ciekawy film melodramatyczny. jest jak metalowa wersja Tylera Durdena, który ma wszystko w nosie i ta energia na pewno pomaga filmowi wybi? si? nad reszt?. Oczywi?cie jest przesadzony dla dramaturgii, ale aktorsko to nadrabia, postacie s? mimo, ?e zachowuj? si? po filmowemu to wydaja si? by? prawdziwe. Scena pogrzebu, niezwykle wzruszaj?ca. Ocena: 8/10

Mother's Day - zaskakuj?co udany thriller z ?wietn?, przera?aj?c? kreacj? Rebecci De Mornay, na pocz?tku wygl?da jak kolejny film z zak?adnikami, ale pojawienie si? matki zmienia wszystko, ca?y ton filmu, na lepsze, bardziej psychopatyczne, ale lepsze. Poza matk?, zalet? filmu sa relacje pomi?dzy wi??niami, jak ekstremalne sytuacje oddzia?ywuj? na zwyk?ych ludzi. Nie jestem pod tym wzgl?dem gorszy od podobnych do niego Cube i Exam. Solidny thriller. Ocena: 7,5/10

Insidious - tym razem zaskakuj?co dobry film z duchami, tegoroczny Paranormal Activity, ba przez pierwsz? godzin? nawet i lepszy. Niestety wraz z wkroczeniem w ?wiat duchów film, traci ca?? groz? i z wspó?czesnego Ducha szybko zmienia si? w film ze ?miesznym potworkiem. Ocena: 6,5/10

Primer - jeden z inteligentniejszych filmów ostatniego dziesi?ciolecia. Je?li kto? jakim? cudem mia? problem ze zrozumieniem ci?gle t?umaczonej w filmie Incepcji, to tutaj po prostu nie ma czego szuka?. Owszem, tu te? wszystko jest t?umaczone przez g?ównych bohaterów, ale ten koncept podró?y w czasie jest tak naukowy i tak bawi?cy si? paradoksami, ?e przy jednym podej?ciu nie sposób jest si? w tym wszystkim po?apa?. Bardzo fascynuj?ce to wszystko by?o, mo?e nie sama podró? w czasie, a i fabu?a nie za dobra, ale to jak inteligentnie widz jest traktowany, jak bardzo cofania si? w czasie, mog?o by by? skomplikowane, i jak skutki uboczne mog?yby doprowadzi? do tragedii. Ocena: 8/10 (aktorsko s?abo)

The King of Kong - bardzo wci?gaj?cy dokument o wydawa? by si? mog?o banalnym temacie - grach komputerowych. Ale w zawzi?to?ci g?ównego bohatera nie ma nic balanego. Po prostu udanie opowiedziana historia o cz?owieku i jego pasji i emocjach. Ocena: 8/10

Take Me Home Tonight - zapewne nie wszystkim przypadnie do gustu, niektórzy b?d? si? czepia?, ?e momentami g?upkowaty humor, ?e ma?o pogodny, starsi, ?e zbyt dziecinny, m?odzi widzowie nie zrozumiej? problemów. Ale ja z tym filmem trafi?em idealnie i problemy g?ównego bohatera zrozumia?em natychmiastowo. Bycie na rozstaju dróg nie jest ?atwe, a ten film wcale nie traktuje tego z przymru?eniem oka. Jedynie dok?ada dawk? ca?kiem niez?ego humoru, który momentami owszem, bywa dziecinny, ale tato, jest impreza... Aktorsko przeci?tnie, no i g?ówny bohater potrafi zachowa? si? jak duper, jednak czy to nie czyni go bardziej ludzkim? Ocena: 7,5/10

Solidne:
Hall Pass 6/10 (do?? zaskakuj?co dobra komedia, nie na poziomie G?upiego i g?upszego, ale ma swoje momenty i nie jest strasznie debilna - tylko jeden ?art ze sraniem, wow sukces - no i Jenna Fischer)

To?samo?? 6/10 (film ok, pod koniec za bardzo stara? si? by? jak Taken, ale wczesniej nawet imponowa?, bardzo dobra rola Bruno Ganza)

Jestem numerem cztery 5,5/10 (spodziewa?em si? ZMierzchu z kosmitami, ale nie jest tak ?le. Tzn jest na pewno nastawiony na nastolatków, ale ci nie s? ani tak irytuj?cy, ani te? jedyni na ekranie. Bardzo fajny jest Olyphant tutaj, a i kilka scen akcji pod koniec nawet wymiata?o, szkoda, ?e g?ówny bohater drewniany i te m?odzie?cze rozterki, ale dla licealistów i gimnazjalistów bym to nawet poleci?)

Drive Angry 5/10 (film nie tyle co solidny, ale momentami przyjemnie z?y. Nic Cage jest nieco szalony, Amber Heard gor?ca, fabu?a idiotyczna, ale zdaj?ca sobie z tego spraw?, a William Fischtner gra ?wietn? posta?. Denerwuje 3D, no i po prostu nie jest to dobry film)

Do utraty tchu 4,5/10 (film Godarda w solidnych? Ano tak, bo w dzisiejszych czasach ander irytuj?cy d?ugimi momentami, w tamtych czasach mo?e ?wie?y i dostaje za to punkt, ale dzisiaj to odbiera si? raczej negatywnie. Gwa?towne skoki, mi?dzy uj?ciami, "brakuj?ce sceny", fabu?a bez fabu?y. Meh. No film jest na pewno bardzo stylowy, a i Belmondo gra rewelacyjnie, ale poleci? filmu za bardzo nie mog?)

Hobo with a Shotgun 5/10 (zawiod?em si? na tym filmie. Liczy?em, ?e b?dzie to taki grindhouse jakim mia? by? Maczeta, i faktycznie momentami taki by?, jedynie tylko, ze by? jeszcze bardziej przesadzony, absurdalny i wulgarny, bez innego podtekstu pod tym wszystkim. Zagrany jest po prostu fatalnie, czy jest to celowe czy nie, mocno koliduje z solidn? rol? Rutgera Hauera. No i u?ywa najbardziej leniwego dramatyzmu, czyli zabijanie dzieci, zeby by?o bardziej hardcorowo. Stylowo jednak, wie czym jest, i robi to du?o lepiej, a ni?eli Maczeta... jednak wcale nie jest przez to lepszym filmem)

Cedar Rapids 5,5/10 (solidny indie, momentami wr?cz bardzo zabawny)

Stake Land 4,5/10 (tani indie o wampirach, ma kilka ciekawych krwawych scen, w tym jedn? ?wietn?, w której mamy wampiry i helikoptery - udane, ale ??czy jakie? tam w?tki wampiryzmu z religijnymi, z postapokaliptycznymi z redneckami, a bywa to nu??ce przy przeci?tnym aktorstwie)

Assasination Games 4/10 (Van Damme ?pi, a Adkins na si?? jest wpychany jako nowa gwiazda kina akcji. Problem w tym, ?e jak gra bohaterów to jest najbardziej nudnym i pozbawionym charyzmy kolesiem na ekranie. Niech zostanie przy Boyce, tam si? sprawdza)

S?abe:
Green Lantern: Emerald Knights 4/10 (wszystko to jakie? za bardzo kosmiczne dla mnie, nie mo?na w ?aden sposób si? z tym uto?sami?)
Sucker Punch 3/10 (niby ?adne efekty, ciekawa muza, tylko wszystko co si? dzieje nie dzieje si? nawet w filmie, wymys? wyobra?ni, a to co widzimy jest akcyjnym zapychaczem ma?o interesuj?cej przerobionej historii)
Dilemma 3/10 (nudy i przewidywalno??)
No Strings Attached 2/10 (jeszcze wi?ksze nudy i przewidywalno??, plus strasznie denerwuj?cy bohaterowie)
Halloween II (Rob Zombie's) 3/10 (wtf?)
Teksa?ska masakra pi?? mechaniczn?: Nast?pne pokolenie 1/10 (heehe, pora?ka)
Tactical Force 2/10 (Jeden z moich ulubionych obecnych aktorów kina akcji, Michael Jai White, musi si? m?czy? z band? amatorów lub fatalnych aktorów, przy kompletnie debilnej fabule... gdzie jest mój Blood and Bone 2!?)
Post Merge: 21 Sierpień  2011, 23:21:07
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
There’s something about those apes that really makes me entertained. You might think that’s because I like it when poop is being thrown around but if you saw this movie, you know that’s not the case.

For starters, I’m a huge fan of the Charlton Heston classic original. It is a little of a surprise to me because not only am I not 60 years old and remember how amazed was I at the premiere but I also saw it after the shitty remake, with very low expectations and knowing the twist, but I still loved it nonetheless. I guess it’s because the original really tapped well into the humanity of the apes, made it all more about the characters than the concept, which is of course silly. And that’s also what this prequel/remake of the sequel does.

What needs to be said is that what made this movie possible in today’s Hollywood and in my opinion slightly better than Escape and Conquest - that is the CGI. Now, I’ll be the first to criticize the technology, since I’m definitely not a fan and sure enough there were a few scenes that I had my problems with it and that were too obvious, but, all in all, this was as close to photorealistic as we can be now. Yet that’s still not the plus, the real deal is the motion capture, which allowed Andy Serkis a breakthrough performance with this technology, without which conveying such emotions by a monkey or even a man in a suit wouldn’t be possible. Many times my annoyance by the use of CGI was trumped by how amazed I was by what’s on screen. Especially during the first half of the movie when I was connecting with an animal more than with most humans in movies last couple of years. The bond between Caesar and Franco, and subsequently his father, was something else and then how it was juxtaposed to the ongrowing relationship he had with the apes, how he connected with them, rose to power and grew up, was definitely enough to warrant the existence of this movie. This is just a very well made character flick, only with monkeys as the leads.

That being said there’s another reason why the monkeys are the stars. There’s really not that many well played human characters and whenever the scenes switched from the apes, the movie lost a step, thankfully only to make two extra steps the next time. It might have benefited from a strong human presence like Heston’s but I’m not sure it really needed it. No one really plays bad here, Franco is solid so is Freida Pinto, they made a nice duo, John Lightow is great, especially when he goes all cranky, only to be calmed down by Caesar. Even the villain isn’t as one-dimensional, yeah he is the stereotypical money hungry guy, but David Oyelowo plays him as the kind of guy who would like you if you wouldn’t fuck with him. Egocentrical? Yes. Evil? Not really. This, however, is Serkis’ show all the way. The amount of emotions this dude can convey trough his expressions is amazing, and it’s not only their amount but the quality of it. He nails every scene, never overdoes it, he’s never too obvious, and when he’s pissed, he’s really pissed and frankly, kind of badass.

After Caesar becomes the monkey king, or The Caesar as you will, that’s when the movie goes downhill a little. Until then nothing takes you out of the movie, as you happily chew on your nachos being excited by genius monkeys, but after the break out you really do tend to go “okay, this is getting silly.” Not only that but we ditch the characters for the inevitable action sequences which take longer than they really should, we are introduced to other, let’s say, unique monkeys, but they come and they go and definitely do not share Caesar personality. Then again maybe that’s what made this story so worth telling, because he was that special. The ending thankfully brings us back on track, doesn’t go as far as I thought it would, which is good, and introduced another plot point that made the original a whole lot more believable.

As a fan of the original sequels I was not too keen on checking this movie out. But even though I might not condone such dismissal of those movies, I have to admit that this installment is probably better and suits the first movie much better. The amount of nods to Heston’s character makes it clear in which universe it’s set in, the Marky Mark less one, and were much appreciated for the sake of continuity. All in all, it’s really a movie that will catch a lot of people by surprise because of how human it actually is.
Ocena: 7,5/10

Cowboys & Aliens
On a three movie cinema night, this one was the movie I was most excited to see. Sadly, this one was the one I liked the least.

Harrison Ford in a Sci-fi that’s also a Western? Count me in! Thankfully it still stands after the movie, since it’s his best role in a very long time, but the movie itself didn’t really deliver that much. To be fair, it basically delivers as much as a crossover between a Western and Sci-fi could. There aren’t many flaws apart from the ridiculousness of the plot, but the movie isn’t anything more. It has a main protagonist that’s mysterious but pretty fucking bland if you ask me. He’s your typical silent, tough cowboy who’s past is unknown, not even to him. But Clint Eastwood for example had a lot of charisma in his roles and Craig is just there. He could have used some better lines when he eventually spoke. Okay, and this character has a magic weapon that can kill the aliens, they fight, someone wins, you probably know who and it’s the end. There are some nice action scenes, and I like how they used a lot of stuntmen to do most of these but the overall story is rather weak and forgotten as soon as the aliens show up.

Like I said Daniel Craig is not that good in this, he basically just goes around acting to be a badass. He’s not bad, but he just doesn’t have a lot of material to work with. Harrison Ford is the highlight of the film for me. Not that he’s great or whatever, but that he’s finally excited doing something on screen. You can see he's got a lot of enjoyment playing a cowboy, whilst coming back to his Sci-fi roots. But I guess what he liked the most is that his character is the best written one in the film and Ford does justice to it. He starts as the villain of a Western flick, but then we get to see a human side to him as he works with one of his trusted man, played equally good by, I swear to god probably the only native American actor in Hollywood today, Adam Beach. Their relationship was my favorite part, especially the way it’s concluded. Olivia Wilde is also nice, but mainly nice on the eyes. She doesn’t have as much of a story arc as she should and serves as the guide for the characters as to what is really going on. She has her own agenda but one that’s only barely scratched upon. Oh yeah, and then there’s Sam Rockwell who plays a nice part, not your typical western character, he feels more like a nowadays guy thrown into the Wild West, and I thought it worked pretty well.

I liked the action sequences, I liked most of the characters, I even think it delivered on what it wanted to be, a nice mash-up being faithfull to both genres. So why isn’t it all sunshine and rainbows? Maybe because it doesn’t go the extra mile. It’s basically the movie you envisioned it to be before the movie, it doesn’t surprise you with anything. I guess it also could have been a better Western. If there were no Aliens in this, this would have probably been one of the worst Westerns I’ve ever saw. It should have been grittier in that department, more Unforgiven-ish, with less humor and kiddy stuff and Indian magic, there's enough of Supernatural as it is. Cause in a movie with Aliens on the wild west that was the thing that bothered me most.

To sum up, it’s decent movie, nothing more, nothing else. If not for some nice action scenes and very good stuntwork, go see it for Harrison Ford having fun on screen.
Ocena: 6/10

Horrible Bosses
This movie I caught by accident. I was supposed to finally see the last Harry Potter movie but then I realized that it’s Friday and they changed the schedules and I couldn’t see it, so because there was nothing else worth a watch I decided to go and see this one. And I’m really glad I did.

Rarely these days do you see a comedy were basically every crucial cast member knocks it out of the park, but this was a prime example of such movie. The story itself, is pretty dark and twisted just because of the premise, but it never goes as dark as I thought it might and should. It’s all played mainly for laughs, makes it funny and cool to kill a person, which let me be honest, doesn’t always work that well here, but thankfully they had some talented people on screen and it totally saved it.

Jason Sudeikis, is one of my favorite members of SNL right now and with both his major roles this year, he proves he can go on, like so many before, to acting on the big screen. He’s really funny here, as the cool, a little douchy guy. He was my favorite of the three leads. Jason Bateman is also really good, he’s got the calm guy part, but he can be really funny at times, mainly when he flips out. That one scene really made me burst out laughing because of the sick bastard I am and how it delivered the one time on what I wanted it to do. Then there’s Charlie Day, who is the silly one in the group. This normally would be the guy with whom I would have my problems, since they’re over the top, often offensive, but here it really helps that he starts off rather normally and plays it straight. It’s only after they decide to put their plan in motion he gets goofy. But who wouldn’t in his situation, his boss raped him, he’s doing Colin Farrell’s blow, and is desperate enough to kill a dude with peanuts. All in all the only unusual thing about him would be not banging a smoking hot Jennifer Aniston.

Speaking of whom, she’s good in this. It’s finally, after 20 years or so, a different role for her and she’s super fun. Not only is she not playing Rachel, but she’s damn fine, probably the most since her Friends days. Kevin Spacey is the other villain, and he might not be as funny as the rest, but he deliveres when he needs to, especially at the work place, he was tremendous at how much of a dick he was to Bateman’s character. He’s also the little twist here and the boss he plays changes the tone of the film at some point and it becomes much better than I expected. I thought this was going to be a comedy of errors right till the end, where the leads will try and fail to do what they've planed, because of a series of accidents, only to be resolved in a peaceful way at the end. Nah ah, not here. But that would be giving up too much. The best performance, however, belongs to Colin Farrell, he’s absolutely hilarious in the small amount of screen time he had. He’s the absolute dick among dicks and I loved it. Seriously, you’ll need to see this to get it. Oh yeah and there’s also some nice cameos by Jaime Foxx and the Old Spice guy, Isiah Mustafa.

Like in most comedies, not everything worked, some jokes will always miss in a two hour movie, and like I said before, it’s not as dark as it should have been and it’s too dark of a premise to show it in such a happy go lucky tone. But a comedy has it’s own rules and it mainly should be judged by how funny it was overall, and I can honestly say it made me laugh hard and it was a fun time at the movies. Sure, some jokes are cut way too short, and it’s definitely not going to be a classic, but if you want a one-time good laugh, it’s definitely a movie for you.
Ocena: 7/10

Drzewo ?ycia
So I've just got back from The Tree of Life and... it's pretty bad. I think some might even find it terrible (some will love it, obviously) and that's how I felt when I was watching it. It's better after you've let it sink in but still, it was a hard watch! Mind you this comes from a guy who really liked The Thin Red Line and didn't mind The New World, but this movie really pushes the boundaries of pretentiousness. Most of the time it really felt like it was absolutely about nothing, though I got the message at the end, I think. However, I didn't think that the passing of time and complexity of relationships are such abstract and important ideas to demand as fucking painful experience as that. Basically it was just Discovery Science in super slow motion, mixed in with an afternoon family drama and with random quotes and scenes thrown in there just to fuck you up. What I learned from it is nothing except that I hate Sean Penn's face and that Malick has to have some serious mommy issues.

The acting is terrific, IF there’s anyone on screen. Nobody ever shines as they should but that’s basically because the movie and the non-existent story doesn’t allow them. The cinematography can be really beautiful so if you only judge a movie based on that, it’s a joyous time… Music is alright, though not my cup of tea, yet if you are a fan of classical music then you might enjoy it as well. Other than that I can’t encourage anyone to see this since it was so boring and painful for me. There is a good movie in there somewhere, but not with such an execution, not about nature, and god and shit. Maybe it’s me, maybe I don’t get what a two minute shot of a flock of birds is supposed to symbolize, but I’m never gonna want to see this again and try to find out. It’s just not worth it.

I wouldn't actually say that I hated it, but in no way, shape or form this was a pleasurable experience. I appreciate its technical values, however I do not want to pay for the imagery alone and for something that felt so boring and old after 10 minutes. 
I guess if you like to look at Mona Lisa for over two hours, that's the movie for you.
Ocena: 4/10

Source Code
By now it’s becoming more and more clear that David Bowie might be the best thing that has happened to this planet. He not only was a genius musician, who made an incredible amount of classic tunes, a solid actor in most of his appearances but he also gave us Duncan Jones, one of the most talented and promising directors of his generation. Thanks DB, thank you very much.

One probably cannot start writing about this particular movie without first mentioning Moon, the directors debut. Considered by many an instant sci-fi classic, Moon maybe didn’t reach those heights for me but it was one of the top 5 movies of its year, it was clearly a beautifully crafted, modest yet clever flick with an incredible performance by Sam Rockwell. There’s no doubt in my mind that Duncan Jones deserved this praise and with Source Code he only established his position among the best around. This doesn’t necessarily mean his sophomore work is better but it didn’t have to be. Source Code is a really good movie in its own right and like its predecessor should be considered as one of the best of its year.

My favorite thing about this was the concept itself and how intelligently it was presented, with very few plot holes. They used the theory of time travel, theory of parallel universes and virtual reality and made something that’s not only not dumb but also quite believable. The other thing would have to be the cinematography, because we’ve not only got some very nice shots of Chicago but also the way that the explosions are shot is pretty beautiful to watch. Not to mention the scene when cap Stevens had to jump out of the train, which gave me that old action-adventure feel to it… plus it was really brutal to see. I feel like I also need to mention the music. It wasn’t great, but somehow it stuck with me, I guess it just worked really well with the movie and even though by itself it’s nothing special, it gives another portion of excitement to many scenes. And I must say, wasn’t it a little similar to one of Passenger 57 tracks? It might just be me, I don’t know.

The acting is pretty solid all around. That being said, it’s not the highlight of the movie. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the typical square jawed American hero and he does it well. He even adds a sense of vulnerability and likeability to the army man, adding a little bit of his personal charm that is present in many of his films and was much welcome here. He suited the part, nuff said. Michelle Monaghan’s role here is minor and it derails the plot and the goal of the movie a little, but again, even with the small amount of time she has, she comes of as very likeable and as someone you wouldn’t like to see get hurt and that’s something that was crucial to the characters motivations. Since this is mainly Jake’s film all the way, the passengers on the train have very few lines, the villain also has a small amount of time on screen as the villain â€" and to be honest, it’s pretty obvious from the start who that will be. The only two characters that are left are the professor, who’s the brain of the project and the army lady played by Vera Farmiga. Both are minor but again serve their respective parts well to the storyline, Farmiga especially adds a human touch to a plain expositionary character.

The movie itself doesn’t suffer from many flaws, the only ones are connected more with the overall enjoyment of the movie. Main point is that, although it’s a very well made movie, with a lot of effort put into the writing and the logic of it all, it’s not that memorable of an experience. It’s really good when you see it but you know immediately it’s not an instant classic that you’ll be coming back to again and again in the future. That’s not saying the movie is boring, cause it’s far from it, but it could have gone a little further with the concept it presented to us. For a part sci-fi, part action, part thriller, it really does lack in the last two departments. Sure there’s a lot of explosions but they’re all in rewind, the fight is too grounded in reality to not be lame in comparison to other movies. As for the thrills, for the most part we’re stuck with cap Stevens figuring what’s the Source Code, who is he, where is he really. When he figures it out, everything goes really quickly after that and then we end. I guess it was a little refreshing not having a movie overly filled with action and focusing more on what it wanted to introduce to the genre, but then again it could have been explained a lot quicker and then we could devote more time to the characters on the train, why should we care for them and the villain.

But it is fun to see a movie not being stupid about what it’s doing. By now all of this is as impossible as a time machine made out of a Delorean but with the current growth of technology this really was a fascinating concept to explore and one that is pretty original. The execution is almost perfect, with a lot of effort being made to make it as good as it is. Basically every aspect of filmmaking shines here, which with a budget like that and a human story at it’s core is something that needs to be applauded.
Ocena: 8/10

Melancholia
After really hating the Antichrist and disliking The Tree of Life I was cautious with this film, figuring that maybe artistic films have stopped making an impression on me and they will just feel tedious and self-indulgent from now on. But thanks to you people on MFC I decided to go with it and this was a good decision, even though I must point out that, again, this movie will not be for everyone.

Melancholia is definitely another artistic venture for Von Trier and you can see it right from the bat with a stunning opening sequence that foreshadows many of the plot points of the movie. It’s shot so beautifully that it might even be a complaint since the rest of the movie never reaches the same heights with the possible exception of the ending. Nonetheless Von Trier and his cinematographer need to be applauded just for this sequence alone. Next we got a storyline divided into two chapters each of them switching focus between the two sisters who are our main protagonists. Although they are female I couldn’t help myself but think that this is a very personal movie for the director and it really helps if you can relate to his struggles with his psychological state. I know that I could and maybe this is what I enjoyed the most, that he could tap into that feeling of misery, while also presenting forced laughs, that are so reminiscent of hiding our colors of blue before everybody. At times it felt over-the top, and yet it was still understandable if you take the titular disease into consideration and the cataclysmic circumstances of the movie. What Von Trier also managed to do is make the end of the world a secondary plot point, yet as scary as ever. There’s a sequence when one of the sisters taught by her husband to check the distance between the two planets, checks it once and then sits down for five minutes of fear to check back again. This fear translates off-screen thanks to the suspense and the shear scope of the event. It reminded me of the Poltergeist scene, when the kid counts the time between the lightning and the thunder, both being very simple yet effective sequences.

Kirsten Dunst is on another level here for her. Both acting-wise and attractiveness-wise. She is the vessel of Von Trier to translate his fears and disillusions with the viewers and she does it perfectly. Her mental decline is contrasted by her struggle to keep a “happy face” during her own wedding party. And what a bride she is! Simply gorgeous and this comes from a guy who never found anything appealing in her before. But between this movie and All Good Things I can easily say she’s quite the looker… and has some excellent boobage. Charlotte Gainsborough plays the second sister, who is supposed to take care of her younger sibling during the second act, yet she herself breaks down on and with Armageddon looming she finds herself less capable than her sick sister. This was another stand out role. The rest of the actors are just there sadly, because the potential was much bigger. John Hurt, Udo Kier, both Skarsgards, all had little roles and didn’t show much, whilst Kiefer Sutherland I felt was terribly miscast. Though his character did remind me of Dr Schreber, which comes definitely as a plus!

My biggest issue, and it's huge and quite overhelming, is that the film feels a uneven and overlong. Especially the first part, with the wedding party. If you ask me this was basically an overlong prologue establishing the state of mind of the main characters and it shouldn’t be so long. Thankfully it at least has some nice family moments, which make for an emotional response here and there and somewhat keep the time going. The second part is not without it’s fault as well. The movie is shot on a handheld camera which works with the wedding bits but gets annoying during the second half. I think it would work better with a change in camera styles between chapters. Another issue that one might have is that most of the characters can be real douchebags and you really have to try to slip in their shoes to go along for the ride. It shouldn’t be so hard.

However all in all, I liked it. It’s not the fun movie of the summer and maybe not the movie you should see with a group of friends, but if you want a movie to have a deep impact on you this is it. It’s a tough film, maybe not one that will make you think afterwards, but definitely a movie that will make you go quiet for a few minutes after you've seen it.
Ocena: 7,5/10

Super 8
Holy nostalgia Batman! From what I’ve been seeing on the web there seems to be two groups of people: the ones who think that Super 8 brought back all the fun memories of classic Spielberg movies and the ones who think that it’s just a shameless rip-off of Spielberg’s work. After experiencing it on my own I can definitely say I’m much closer to the former group.

I absolutely loved most of this movie. To the point that I do see where some folks who didn’t like it are coming from, but I just don’t care. Through most of its running time it was exactly what I’ve been missing for so long. Many people seem to compare it to Jurassic Park, or ET, or Close Encounters, or Jaws or Reiner’s Stand By Me and I’ve seen all those movies in Super 8 and loved it. The kids point of view, their journey and maturation really was the highlight, and you can bring up River Phoenix and his gang but to get so much maturity and yet childlike fantasy is a hard task to accomplish no matter what the inspiration was. It’s impossible to simulate the magic of early Amblin, so JJ Abrams needs all the credit he got for his work on this project, because he created his sense of wonder, similar to the style of his idol, yet very distinct of himself. Not only that, but with the kids filming their project during most of the time they spend on screen, you can see this is also a very personal project for the director â€" keeping the movie in the fun times of the 80’s Super 8 cameras and the cellular phones/internet addiction free kids. It’s difficult to review this any further without getting into spoiler territory, because I wanted to know as little as possible before seeing it and the sense of mystery only multiplies the experience. So let me just say that the supernatural is dealt with almost flawlessly, balancing the scary and the amazing with the very modest, down to earth human side of the film and the ending is again a magical moment. You can almost call it an original throwback because it doesn’t evoke any of the movies of old per se, but it does make you feel the same way that you felt when you first saw them 10, 15, 20, or 30 years ago, with some scenes, like the military bus one, delightfully winking at the audiences.

As I mentioned the child’s perspective is what makes this movie. This could have easily broken the movie to pieces but thanks to the mature treatment of the characters, by both the writers and actors, it works really well. Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning are very good as basically the lead protagonists and the romantic couple. Their feelings seem very real and are the basis of the last act of the movie. The kids that play the detective and the zombie in their little feature serve as good comic relief. I laughed quite a lot thanks to these two. But the stand out for me was Riley Griffiths, the director of the independent flick and the fifth wheel in the relationship of Joe and Alice. In some other hands he might have come off as the annoying kid that feels bad for himself but the main characters in these movies aren’t shallow and Riley makes the most of it. We not only get to feel sorry for him but we also laugh with him on many occasions. A very likeable character. The adults are played mostly good as well, especially Kyle Chandler and Ron Eldard who share an interesting if troubled dynamic during the movie and their kids don’t make it much easier on them either. The one beef I have with the acting are the villains. They are too stereotypically military. Again we get the cold army guys who don’t care about what their doing, they’re just following orders or preventing a “nation-wide panic”. Been there, done that movie, enough with the soldier clichés!

I wrote that I loved most of the movie, and by most I do mean not all of it. Ironically I didn’t like the slow start to the movie. I realize that the build-up was key in the eighties and it worked as much as any FX at the later moments of the films, but in Spielberg movies we often had a nice hook to get things started, the mystery was build by one shot, it kept you guessing and then came the slow and pleasurable unravel. Here we start things off at a funeral of a person we never saw on screen and will never meet afterwards. It’s hard to get an emotional response from the audience like that and it surely didn’t work for me. Some of the physics in the movie were also off the charts, mostly for the sake of action sequences, which the movie really didn’t need. It is half-assed explained by the presence of a mysterious creature but I would have preferred more attention to laws of physics. I also wasn’t sure about some of the reactions of the human characters at the big climax, but since they shared a unique bond with the creature at that time, I’ll let that slide. What I won’t let slide is the design of the creature itself.... I don’t want to give anything away but it was too generic and too similar to other Bad Robot CG creations.

Yet none of the cons of the movie took me out of it. I was completely absorbed by the story, the suspense and likeability of the characters. I felt very much like a part of this world and if I were younger I’d treat the protagonists as my long time friends and that’s something you can't simulate, you can’t recreate. That’s the magic of cinema and the humanity of Sci-Fi!
Ocena: 8/10

The Lincoln Lawyer - Matthew McConaughey powinien cz??ciej gra? w filmach prawników. To podej?cie nie jest tak dobre jak Czas zabijania, ale jest to solidny thriller s?dowy z bardzo fajnym g?ównym bohaterem. Sama zbrodnia ma?o wci?gaj?ca, ale ogl?da si? nie?le. Ocena: 6,5/10

Hanna - Jeden z 3 najlepszych filmów akcji tego roku, jesli w ogóle nie najlepszy. I wcale nie przeszkadza to, ?e g?ównym bohaterem jest ma?a dziewczynka. Joe Wright po Pokucie, po raz kolejny udowadnia swój talent do kr?cenia filmów, bo ten wygl?da ?wietnie, scena w dokach, czy ucieczki Hanny z obiektu rz?dowego s? fenomenalne. Film tez jest zagrany bardzo dobrze, a ma?a Saoirse jest ca?kiem przekonywuj?ca w tym co robi. Oczywi?cie pomaga te? fakt, ?e mamy prawdziwie m?skiego i twardego Erica Bane w roli taty-mentora. Mi?dzy scenami akcji niestety gwa?townie traci tempo, a sama historia nie jest na tyle pasjonuj?ca by utrzyma? widza w tej samej ciekawo?ci. Jednak muzyka jest te? fenomenalna tutaj, warto ?ci?gn?? OST. Ocena: 7,5/10

Trust - David Schwimmer, tak Ross z Przyjació?, re?yseruje film o pedofilii. Brzmi jak katastrofa, ale w rzeczywisto?ci jest bardzo wci?gaj?cy i niezwykle pouczaj?cy. Uwa?am, ?e ka?dy rodzic powinien go zobaczy?. To w jaki sposób pedofil owija sobie wokó? palca ma?? dziewczynk? jest szokuj?ce, ale bije autentyczno?ci? zachowa? z obu stron. Film jest jednak bardziej histori? ojca i jak on sobie z tym wszystkim radzi i tu te? mamy bardzo przejmuj?c? rol? Clive'a Owena. Udany film, ale nie liczcie na thriller, to jest dramat w czystej postaci. Ocena: 8/10

Oto Spinal Tap - nigdy wcze?niej nie widzia?em tego klasyka gatunku mockumentary, ale do tej pory pluj? sobie w brod?, ?e znalaz?em go tak pó?no. Jest przezabawny, idealna parodia zespo?ów rockowych z lat 80-tych. Co ja tu du?o b?d? mówi?, musicie zobaczy?, zeby si? przekona?. Ocena: 8,5/10

Trzeci Cz?owiek â€" ?wietny noir. Szczerze, du?o bardziej podoba? mi si? ten film z Wellsem, a ni?eli jego “najwi?ksze” dzie?o Obywatel Kane. Tutaj jest tylko przed kamer?, ale spisuje si? bardzo dobrze, a ju? na pewno lepiej spisuje si? jego kolega z planu Obywatela Joseph Cotten w roli ameryka?skiego pisarza w Wiedniu. Ciekawa intryga, ?wietnie wykonane, sceneria jest wr?cz ?ywa i w?asnym charakterem. Fina? osadzony w kana?ach jest nie mniej pami?tny ni? jakakolwiek scena z Obywatela, i zarazem kapitalnie wykonana.  Bardzo dobry krymina?. Ocena: 8,5/10

Trylogia Millenium â€" niezwykle popularna seria ksi??ek doczeka?a si? szybko swojej pierwszej adaptacji w rodzimej Szwecji (bodaj?e). O ile pierwszy film z serii jest bardzo ciekawy, mroczny, wci?gaj?cy, przedstawiaj?cy ciekaw? posta? Lisbeth i mroczne sekrety z jej ?ycia, o tyle dwa sequele s? nudne, wpadaj? ju? nieco w absurd i nie maja tej dodatkowej intrygi, która w pierwszym filmie spisa?a si? tak znakomicie. Nie czyta?em ksi??ek, mo?e jest tam co? wi?cej do opowiedzenia, ale szczerze mam nadziej?, ?e Fincher zrobi tylko jedn? cz???, bo Tylka ta zas?uguje na jego udzia? w tej produkcji. Ogólnie: 5,5/10