D.Moore

What to highlight first? The actors with the excellent duo of Stanley Baker and Michael Caine in the lead? John Barry's flawless music? The amazing cinematography and (on DVD) the digitally restored, new-looking image? Breathtaking battle scenes, which make you catch your breath, and from which adrenaline literally oozes, especially in the moments when the overwhelmed British deploy the tactic of line shooting a few meters away from the breached wall? A script that makes every character (except the pastor) sympathetic, and shows the Zulus not just as brutal apes coming down from trees, but also as remarkable strategists? Well... There's a lot. The film lasts two and a quarter hours and I wasn't bored for even a second. Strong stuff, this.

An immensely engrossing "talking" film that I enjoyed from the first to the last minute. I didn't mind the fact that the filmmakers sided with Al Gore here and there, because they still managed to keep the plot neutral between the Republican and Democratic camps for most of its duration, giving the viewer a perfect insight into the glorious election. Indeed, that's what I call democracy. I think our outdated voting system is golden, when I see how sophisticated the ballots are and how great the vote counters are in progressive countries overseas. One goes to vote, has only five minutes to do so, and when one leaves the ballot box, one has to pray that one's vote will be counted for the person for whom it should be counted (if it is counted at all). Pretty scary. As for the film, it's written in a very engaging way and I would say it will be understandable even to people who know nothing about the Florida recount. Acted just right (by Kevin Spacey, Tom Wilkinson and Laura Dern especially). It is true that in the last quarter or so the constant lawsuits flying from both sides start to get a bit annoying, but I think it was annoying in reality, so why would poke fun at that? Three and a half stars. After You Don't Know Jack, another big point for HBO.

Why "only" three stars? The problem is with the actors, specifically the central couple. I didn't believe in Michael Fassbender's Rochester one bit. I don't know, maybe he's too much of a "pretty boy" for the role, maybe it's something else, but he wasn't nearly as cold and inhuman as I imagined him to be and as portrayed in the book, and I got the impression he got the role mainly because of his current popularity and not based on any casting. I kept thinking about Ralph Fiennes and what he did in The Duchess. That's kind of how I imagine Rochester. And then there's Mia Wasikowska - she's suitable for the role of Jana and plays it well, but I don't think she and the aforementioned M.F. go together at all and I felt minimal (no) emotion from their scenes together. That’s really too bad. Otherwise, the film is well shot, especially the "preconceived" camera makes beautiful pictures, but it didn't save me from boredom. Even Dario Marianelli didn't do much this time.

This is actually a prequel to my beloved Zulu. Cy Endfield, the director of the original great film, sat down at his typewriter this time and decided to show us who fought who, how, with whom and against whom in the Battle of Isandhlwana, the one whose aftermath we see at the beginning of Zulu. Douglas Hickox took over the direction, and the cast is truly stellar. There were many more extras this time around and in fact much more of everything... So what the hell went wrong? Mr. Endfield will forgive me, but it's his script that's at fault. He took care to fill the story with as many real characters as possible, but he forgot to describe them, to characterize them, to bring them closer to us. So by the time the battle that the viewer has been anticipating since the opening credits begins, a little over seventy minutes have passed, during which an awfully large number of people are talking to each other, who have the faces of Burt Lancaster, Peter O'Toole, Nigel Davenport, Bob Hoskins, and if it weren't for the fact that they are played by these greats, we would have no idea who they are. The film soon becomes uncontrolled chaos (not unlike that battle), and any viewer who keeps track of when the army split into parts, where any of its parts are, and who the Zulus are attacking has my admiration. Yes, when the sought-after and, I must say, well-filmed skirmish (which, of course, is nothing like the aforementioned 1964 film) begins, it's all gone... But that's not what a good film is. I don't even want to mention how the English are portrayed as heroic and the Greeks and the blacks as the worst kind of scum.__P.S. Elmer Bernstein has not matched John Barry with a single note.__P.P.S. Zulu is unbeatable, in case anyone doubts it.

Harper's back. And it's even better than the first time. His hair may have started to turn grey, but what does it matter when he is still the same private, ever-open eye that doesn't miss a thing. The main advantage of this film, of course, aside from the fantastic Paul Newman, is its script. Compared to the first part, it is even more gripping, just as entertaining, and thanks to the scene of the flooding of the sanatorium, it will probably forever be part of my private archive of unforgettable film moments. The story also benefited from the fact that it takes place in gloomy New Orleans, which I personally find much more atmospheric than sunny California. The plot is as convoluted as can be, and the initial mini-plot with the blackmail letter turns into a real race for lives within a few dozen minutes, and the fact that I already knew how things were going by the end didn't mean that the ending didn't surprise me. I round up four and a half for the aforementioned sanatorium.

Harper's screenplay was written by William Goldman, creator of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Marathon Man, A Bridge Too Far, The Ghost and the Darkness and other goodies. It's quite noticeable. I'm not familiar with the book, but as far as the film is concerned, it is commendable that Paul Newman's character is not just another Phil Marlowe clone. Lew Harper is a stubborn guy who can go after what he wants at any price, but he is also a funny, reckless, cheeky and very happy to provoke pest, who is also 100% likable. He doesn't get involved with women not because he doesn't want to or because they don't want him to, but because he is married and although he is going through a divorce with his wife, he still hopes that everything will be all right again. Harper solves the case as if it were a cheap nickel-and-dime detective story, but he does it very pleasantly, the plot moves along and brings new questions and answers and great scenes like Harper's reckoning with Puddler. As a lover of the genre, I can't give it less than a four even because of the few dead spots and the awkward religious cult.__P.S. I was amused by the scene in the bar when Paul Newman pulls information out of a chubby former actress in a downright Columbus-esque "Can I get your autograph? It's for my daughter, she's a big fan of yours, you know, she's seen all your films..." way.

Johnny English's sequel could only be worse in two ways compared to the bland first installment: If Rowan Atkinson wasn't playing the lead role, or if he was, but for some mysterious reason he'd stop being funny. Fortunately, nothing like that happened and I can say that I like Johnny English Reborn better than its predecessor. There are many more memorable moments in the film, the absolute best of which is the cunning Hong Kong chase, and there are more original (the chair, the helicopter) and unprecedentedly refined jokes (the training with Tibetan monks and his gradual improvement - especially in the cable car), there's not a single fecal scene I hated the writers for, as was the case with the previous film, and thanks to the constant battles with the maniacal cleaning lady, we learn that a repeated joke can still be a joke if you know how to repeat it properly. And the biggest positive is the fact that this time Agent English is not such a blatantly clumsy idiot, but rather a capable and likeable person, who of course often has bad luck.__P.S. The scene in the credits made me cry. Laughing, of course.

Well, all that glitters in Britain is not gold. I have one basic problem with Attack the Block: A group of central, uh, well, let's say heroes. I didn't find them remotely likeable, they weren't funny at all, and they weren't even laughable enough for me to laugh at times. The entire time I was just waiting to see when and on which of them some hairy monster would jump and turn him into mash, who would finally be silent and wouldn't keep saying "cool lines". Nope. I don't really find it funny that someone is constantly smoking weed and then saying weird things with a weird look on their face. Just like watching moody teenagers whose wit seems to stem from something I didn't even catch. And when a sympathetic girl, who was robbed by this group at the beginning, and thanks to whom some of them even started to humanize themselves, was thrown into the plot, it was unfortunately too late for me to root for them. Yes, it's commendable that Attack the Block has a good atmosphere without super-expensive effects, and it's good that the ending feels completely different than you'd expect, but I wanted something completely different and better.

You say there's no afterlife? John Frankenheimer may have died ten years ago, but in 2011 we got Killer Elite, a film that is Frankenheimerian in every way. I don't know if Gary McKendry summoned his ghost to help him, or if Frankenheimer reincarnated himself into him (only future films will tell), but it doesn't really matter. The main thing is that the action is there, and that it is realistic, gritty, non-digital, and non-slow-motion. For example, I haven't seen such a nice fight as Statham and Owen's hospital scene in a long time, and when I add to that the fact that it was preceded and followed by a number of other treats (the chase in Oman, the London car chase, all the scenes with the elimination of the SAS members, Statham chained to a chair, the perfect finale), the likes of which have not been seen here (except perhaps in Craig's Bond films) for a very long time. I can't be dissatisfied with this. The central acting trio was a delight and I was especially happy that Robert De Niro didn't just get some cheap shtick, but a pretty big role. The only shame was the script, which could have forgiven the storyline with Statham's girlfriend and not tried to be so serious and subtle

You'd prop up dead men and inspect them if you was ordered to! The Hill is an absolutely extraordinary film that (not only because of the ending) I will never forget. Sidney Lumet handled Rigby's premise brilliantly, and for my part, I have to say that he advanced the disturbing critical novel, which I read in one sitting, up another rung on the "riveting" scale. He succeeded, of course, thanks to the actors. Sean Connery delivers one of the best, if not the best, performance of his career here, and Harry "Major Wilson" Andrews is not the least bit flawed either, playing the principled psychopath in an admirable way that thankfully doesn't slip into cheap caricature.