Necrotongue

The story wasn’t complicated at all, the plot was sometimes illogical, but I was satisfied anyway. I liked the overall execution, and I was also pleased with the great cast (including Bill Murray's cameo).

It was a real treat for me to watch Robert Pattinson express a whole range of emotions with a single facial expression. Zoolander must be one of his favorite films because this was textbook Magnum. The story was actually a standard American love story, only the creators placed it in a rather non-standard setting. The only actor whose performance was impressive was Christoph Waltz in another one of his manic roles, but that's about it. Plus, the film’s title is awfully misleading, there is only one elephant in it, and despite the prohibition, it isn't about water either.

It wasn’t boring, Clive Owen is an actor I always look forward to seeing, and I usually enjoy films about the fight against unscrupulous capitalism (and banks in particular), but there were some logic holes in this story of a modern Don Quixote and his friends. I think the authors could have made a little more effort.

After a shaky start, the story started unfolding in an interesting way, the authors provided more and more insight into all the main characters. I ended up having a surprisingly good time. 4*+

There’s nothing good about this film, and the acting performances are pathetic. And you know what? I won't waste any more time on a pointless analysis. “Boo!” is too low a rating.

I didn't get to laugh much, and I was really annoyed by the film’s predictable plot. Things could hardly be saved by Ryan Reynolds and his standard poker face or Jeff Bridges’ garrulous character. It wasn’t a disaster, but an average rating is enough.

It was basically like a Bond film whose creators shamefully wasted the opportunity for witty dialogue. If they hadn’t, agent Solo wouldn’t have gotten on my nerves so much and agent Kurjakin might not have seemed like a Terminator with poor software. It could have been a great film if only Guy Ritchie hadn’t forgotten to put more zing into it. 4*-

As opposed to the first Kick-Ass, the second film had some shortcomings: 1) I really missed Mark Strong in the role of the main villain, Christopher Mintz-Plasse didn’t even come close to his performance. 2) The story was not as coherent as in the previous film and kept running into uninteresting dead ends. 3) All those unnecessary supporting characters were really annoying. 4) The worst thing was the constant moralizing - the original lightness of the story was gone. If there’s anything I would highlight, it’s Jim Carrey's performance as Colonel Stars and Stripes. It was yet another proof that without his goofy grimaces, he is actually an excellent actor. 3*-

Even after all these years, I still enjoy the film, and I consider it much better than most films about "actual" superheroes. There are several reasons for that - I like the work of Matthew Vaughn, I like the film’s humor, I don’t mind its violence and the cast was spot-on. Mark Strong always plays his villains excellently, Aaron Taylor-Johnson was instantly convincing in the role of a loser, and Chlöe Grace Moretz gave a perfect performance. There must be something wrong with me, but I really enjoy scenes in which a thirteen-year-old girl hacks professional killers into bits. Especially with such a great soundtrack.

The series is one of my favorite HBO "history" series, alongside Rome and The Tudors. Even in this case, the creators didn't let themselves be too bound by the actual events and bent history according to their needs. But that’s what I’ve come to expect of HBO, and I don’t let it ruin my overall impression. Plus, all the more reason for me to look for deviations from historical events, so I might even educate myself in the process :-) As a bonus, I was served various hypocritical church practices, so all the more reason to be satisfied.