Remedy

Undoubtedly one of the strongest ever representatives of the thriller genre, which makes an extremely unnerving, unsettling, and utterly evocative impression thanks to its impeccable psychological atmosphere and virtuoso direction. Morgan Freeman's superb performance as a brilliant investigator just before retirement and Brad Pitt's performance as an enthusiastic rookie afterwards "merely" enhance the unique experience, which I rank among the best films of the 90s hands down. David Fincher's first mega-cut into world cinema, which also firmly and clearly defined Fincher's unique style with its uncanny ability to create a depressing, perfectly immersive atmosphere.

The ultimate cocktail of everything that can be called the American Dream. Martin Scorsese has done a damn fine job in his old age, and in an completely ultimate way has let the whole world know that not only can he fantastically reflect current trends (which in itself is damn remarkable given his advanced age), but that he is quite rightly one of the few who sets and creates new trends. The Wolf of Wall Street is a brutal load of the most depraved humor, a showcase of impeccable acting performances (apart from, yet again, the Oscar-winning DiCaprio, the boorish Jonah Hill captivates and the unforgettable Matthew McConaughey impresses in his mini-role) and the repeated spitting in the face of anyone who, perhaps out of divine duty, would like to claim some kind of moral ideals. Scorsese, at his venerable age, still has a pretty damn good sense of humor, so it's not really surprising when, after a riveting excursion into the tumultuous life of a dishonest but still immensely likable stockbroker, he screws a fairly fundamental moral dilemma into the story. And at this point comes perhaps the biggest slap in the face of the entire film, as Big Marty doesn't pull any punches (some useless ideals don’t even figure) and once again tells the whole world that in the end, the poor guy who still believes in some mythical institution of friendship and his own loyalty is the worst off (*SPOILER ALERT* – I have to admit, that in the end, it's not clear whether Donnie actually turned Jordan in or not – the feds came for him afterwards, too, but by just planting this additional seed of doubt about the last vestige of loyalty between Donnie and Jordan, Scorsese added another dimension). There is of course an incredible amount of drugs, alcohol, and sex, all sorts of pleasures that usually lead to a strong addiction, but the real addiction and obsession here is represented by sheer passion for something, far from just an obsessive need to keep making money. It is the need to be fully part of the bohemian world of the wildest parties, to be constantly in the thick of things, to push one's boundaries further and further and to try to satisfy one's greed for power, at least in an elementary way. It is a fool who describes Martin Scorsese as someone who is a stranger to any moral scruples and who agrees in all good conscience with what the real Jordan Belfort did. Scorsese has made it clear that if he describes something, it doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with it. DiCaprio was a little less restrained and flat out said let America dig into its own conscience. I don't think the indignant and morally outraged critics could never have done a better job of promoting this film than by throwing dirt on the filmmakers themselves. The crucial point in this case is that The Wolf of Wall Street really "merely" describes the rise and fall of Jordan Belfort and makes no attempt to judge or moralize (which would perhaps appeal to some pseudo-intellectuals, but Scorsese is too cunning for that). DiCaprio would have deserved the Oscar, of course, but given the tone and the aforementioned criticized approach to substance, I think it will be Matthew McConaughey who ultimately snags it.

There's a lot of camera magic here, which is obviously very effective and pleasing to the eye. The idea of being able to use the full capacity of your brain for your existence is quite original, but I can't shake the feeling that the whole thing could have turned out 100% better if Burger had been able to keep up the pace he set in the first half all the way through to the end. On the other hand, despite minor quibbles, this is a very above average affair with an excellent Cooper, who is clearly capable of pulling off a feature film like this on his own (Robert De Niro of course ably seconds, but the focus remains on Cooper). Limitless is rather a pleasant, intimate sci-fi film with elaborate visuals and a slightly ambitious script. However, it is still quite a ways off from being an immortal classic. 3.5 stars

It is admirable how Danny Boyle managed to create a truly thrilling, highly sensitive, and ultimately slightly philosophical film in such a limited space, which he has enriched with numerous visual flourishes, without which the whole work might have made a slightly bland impression. I liked the references to the inevitability of fate, to the advantages/disadvantages of too much individualism as a philosophy of life (man gets the opportunity to blend in with nature in a wonderful way, but the price he has to pay in the end is indeed drastic). James Franco's performance needs no further comment, he and Danny Boyle are in it 50/50.

CONTAINS SPOILERS, BY NO MEANS READ BEFORE WATCHING. The best and yet most bizarre thing about this work is the brutal contrast. On the one hand, such poetic, imaginative, subtle, and wonderfully sensitive direction; on the other, a pretty brutal portrait of a homicidal maniac who takes his responsibility to family tradition very seriously and of course has the best interest of preserving the "family lineage" (or more aptly, all that's left of it). I hadn't researched anything about this film beforehand, all I knew was that it was directed by Park Chan-wook and starred Mia Wasikowska and my lifelong platonic love Nicole Kidman. It's certainly worth mentioning the particularly oppressive atmosphere, which has a slight erotic tinge in places, but because Park Chan-wook is very watchable this time around, you can tell from various little details and clues that the eroticism is really an afterthought here. In the end, this is an extraordinarily perverse film that depicts the darkest aspects of human existence in a captivating and visually extremely inventive way, degrading man himself to some mere instinctive essence. You know, I've often wondered why it is that people have children in the first place... And the conclusion I've come to... is that at some point in our lives we realize that things are fucked up beyond repair... So we decide to start again. Wipe the slate clean. Start fresh... And we have children... Little carbon copies we can turn to and say, "You will do what I could not... You will succeed where I have failed...," Because we want someone to get it right this time.

Big Marty on top again. An absolutely superb gangster film in every respect, whose greatest asset is the excellent work with the actors and the perfect rising action. Mark Wahlberg might just have the least amount of space here, but the way he manages to use even that minimal space is fantastic. I almost pissed myself laughing during some of his lines. Martin Scorsese just keeps directing like crazy, his films have incredible balls, and any bullshit about the lack of character psychology or underdeveloped plot or buried point or messing up the original only speaks to a viewer's impotence, which manifests with wildly excessive masturbation over parroting pseudo-art films. I always expect the highest level of entertainment from Scorsese, and The Departed is a fabulous flick with no compromises, and moreover packed with superstar actors. It's even better the second time around and the third time around... Well, I won't go into that here :))))

In the end, the gulf between Webb and Raimi wasn't as wide as I first feared. Sam Raimi is of course a class above Marc Webb as a director, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Webb couldn't make a good and at times quite funny film about my favorite superhero. It's admittedly a bit more juvenile than Raimi's first, but Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker the 2nd doesn't have many flaws – indeed, I found myself at times perhaps even liking him more than the overly geeky Tobey. Two hours ago, I wouldn't have believed I'd be so hungry for more. Oh, and the greater involvement of the "new Mary Jane" as a "supporting superhero girl" wasn't bad at all.

Nymphomaniac had something that no Trier film has had before, and that was a very long and extensive advertising campaign. Who knows if we would have ever awaited this opus if Lars hadn't announced at that famous Cannes press conference that his next film would be several hours of porn. I still remember that press conference vividly, because Trier's "Final Solution with Journalists" is truly unforgettable. As for the film itself, Nymphomaniac follows in the tradition of Trier's last two films, but it should be noted that, unlike Melancholia and Antichrist, the opening is not as heavily stylized in terms of imagery, which of course is then richly compensated for by a visual playfulness almost unusual for Trier (not that Lars isn't otherwise visually creative, but in places here he's really "JUST" playing around). One can't help but notice that in terms of visual "disjointedness" this is actually Trier's calmest film (then again, handheld camerawork of course has a firm place here; after all, it's still Trier...). Rather, I meant to suggest (or maybe Trier meant to suggest) that this is the final part of The Depression Trilogy, which may even symbolize an attempt at a more restrained ending, as matched by the intensity of the use of the handheld camera (I sat in the second row at the premiere of Melancholia, and after 10 minutes I had a bad headache from the constant bouncing of the camera). Otherwise, it's a wonder that such a controversial subject with a very controversial campaign actually resulted in one of the least scandalous and controversial films in Trier's entire filmography. I'm becoming convinced that Lars von Trier is not "just" a brilliant filmmaker/manipulator, but also a man with incredible marketing acumen, and last but not least (lately) a successful businessman. I wish him the best with that, since he’s still true to his style and his auteur imprint remains very strong.

An indisputably successful film in technical terms, no question; but I totally didn’t get all the craziness surrounding it. I was mostly expecting something completely different than an intimate film about monkeys on crack (except for the overhyped bridge finale); plus James Franco, and likely his worst performance ever, didn’t add much to anything either. I guess I'm a simpleton, but I can't appreciate ape intelligence, I don't mind animal experiments, and personally I consider Rise of the Planet of the Apes the biggest bubble of recent years. Above all, it lacks any emotion (I’m really not going to cry when a slightly deranged monkeykeeper sprays Caesar with water for the sake of obedience).

This was so... inconsistent. The director of the original Larsson brought along Noomi Rapace, got a slightly above average script, and made an attempt at some kind of gangster movie with a romantic storyline. Not that Colin Farrell or Noomi Rapace were bad, by any means, but the actual process of how they got close and then how they got closer was altogether odd. The main problem I see is the approach to the material and the fact that Oplev didn't seem to be clear on what he actually wanted to make until the last minute. The individuality is OK, some of the action scenes are even excellent, but the whole thing is stuck together in a very strange way.