J*A*S*M

2009 – Pandora. 2010 – the cyberspace of TRON Legacy 3D. 2011 – A Parisian train station. Three very different magical worlds and three reasons to pay a few crowns more of a 3D cinema ticket. In addition to the intoxicating visuals, Hugo captivates with its two child protagonists (such likeable kids is not something you see everyday in film – with Chloe is no surprise, but Asu was unknown to me) and its sincere love for cinema. As it’s clear from all the reviews, Hugo is a beautiful celebration of the beginnings of cinematography and it’s very easy to surrender to it. What’s worth noticing is that both Hugo and the silent and black and white The Artists are this year’s biggest Oscar favourites and they’ve received the most nominations. Both deal with a certain period that marked a turning point for cinema. Hugo focuses on the beginning of the century in France, and in particular the work of G. Mèliès, which was setting the trends at the time, and the turning point means WWI, due to which the epicentre of the film world moved to America. The Artist, in contrast, celebrates the American silent movies of the 20th century, and the turning point is sound. Both of them imprint the world into their format, where The Artist is a silent romantic comedy and Hugo is a fairytale that uses special effects to bring the viewer into its (3D) world (and that’s why you must watch it in 3D). Almost like Mèliès A Trip to the Moon, init? :). It’s interesting how it came together this year…

Very funny. Really, even though the story is pretty insane and I wouldn’t like something similar happening to me, there were times when I laughed out loud, the war of people against mice is just funny. It’s a horror-lite Mousehunt with a monstrously disgusting and evil mouse. PS: The line “You'll regret you furry fucker" should be carved in stone :-D

In terms of execution, performances and atmosphere, the first half of the film deserves four stars, but the second half loses them due to the weird and unsatisfactory climax. Regarding the questions what, who, why and how things happen, I don’t have any clear answers, and I doubt the creators have them, either.

Rosewood Lane is a watchable, undemanding horror snack and this time that was enough for me. I wasn’t expecting much from Victor Salva and all I knew about the film beforehand is that it was in the works. The premise is exhausted (a fragile girl terrorised by a dangerous stalker – that’s something I can be interested in only if it was directed by Balaguero or someone of a similar calibre), but in this case, it actually does help the film, because they managed to build a pretty unsettling and supernatural aura around that insane paperboy. It’s a bit like waiting for Jeepers Creepers to spread its wings. For me, a satisfied three.

I watched it on the computer. It’s a film that I liked at first sight and will sure watch again. Sex, Lies, and Videotape is a successful feature début by Steven Soderbergh. The four protagonists, none of whom is the prototype of a person I’d like to be friends with, are portrayed in such way that by the end they had earned a little of my sympathy, with the exception of the one that appears to be the most normal. An impressive study on relationships and pathological social behaviour. Interesting film.

Nice, undemanding car horror :-D I don't consider cars a terrifying horror villain, but I liked this. It’s well made, tense, with the right level of silliness and naivete… I’m satisfied.

Trash, basically, but very atmospheric trash. Compared to more famous demonic horror films, however, Damned in Venice plays second fiddle, if not third.

This artsy horror insanity was made by Tony Scott, who has since spent most of his career on dumb action flicks? That was quite a shock, but in a good way (The Hunger is a very good film) and in a bad way, too (given the films Tony would make later). In any case, it’s worth watching, not only for that closing sequence with the “zombie” vampires, which I consider one of the most beautiful and most atmospheric horror scenes ever.

The funniest thing is that some of the really bad old horror movies look almost as silly and amateurish as this great parody. It’s really hilarious at times, but it also has a few weak moments (and episodes – I didn’t like very much the last one with the broccoli).

The official blurb of the distributor says this is a captivating film, but few films have captivated me less. If I didn't know that Neil Jordan is an acclaimed filmmaker and that a lot of viewers of The Company of Wolves find things I wasn't even looking for, I'd call it a derogatory phrase "crazy fantasy".