Lima

Visually, there is nothing to complain about. Every dollar of the 100 million budget is visible in the generous production design, Zwick is very good at action scenes, the two key ones, the massacre in Freetown and the attack on the RUF camp, are examples of great filmmaking. But the film fails in the story, which is an amalgamation of a poor attempt at some kind of overarching idea pointing out the pains of contemporary Africa, and a completely bland plot. It’s written according to the tried-and-tested formula of mainstream Hollywood productions, with a predictable plot and a lot of clichés, including a cheesy final phone call that definitely left my eyes dry. This is also because the script gives very little space to the emotional tension between Archer and Maddy, whose tears – thrill me, kill me – I simply didn't believe, and even the strong scenes (the training of small RUF adepts) get completely lost among the plot ballast. There was no deep lasting experience, only "watch it and forget after a while". Otherwise, Djimon Hounson's expressive performance was once again a pleasure, DiCaprio has finally manned up and stole some scenes (I could feel his suppressed anger at Hounson during a great scene with a hunted baboon) and his work with a machine gun during the attack on the RUF camp would be appreciated even by John Rambo :)

After the extremely underrated The Village, another great effort by Mr.Shaymalan, where I felt a film moving away from mainstream audiences, which I applaud. As with the previous film, a wonderfully atmospheric affair with a great Howard score, some strong moments and Giamatti definitely going into my acting top ten. If you hated the twist of The Village (which was not the point of the film, no matter what anyone says), you will not find anything similar here. Shyamalan has abandoned his traditional trademark of surprising final twists (unless you count the reveal of "The Guardian"), but from the start he develops an original fairy-tale mythology that makes this film at times what one might call "strange" but intriguing. It's impeccable to discuss with equally afflicted film buffs and loses nothing with a second viewing. So, I say, carry on Mr Shyamalan and next time you’ll get 5*. I just hope he won't be deterred from further work by the not-so-favorable response from audiences and film critics (you can do it, Shy, you send the Skrunts after them and it'll be fine).

The last (I hope) Rocky doesn't surprise with anything, the story is again simple and straightforward, with a pinch of combat adrenaline, and life wisdoms that sound out of Harlequin books, some of which caressed the soul. Rocky's final farewell to the audience in the boxing ring (and symbolically, Sly's farewell to this character, which suddenly catapulted him to the cinematic Olympus) left me surprisingly cold, but there’s no denying that it is a worthy farewell. Mainly because there is no lack of insight, Stallone faces the advancing years head on and occasionally throws down some nice and funny lines. In short, Sly made me happy. The film is worth 3 stars, the fourth one is thrown in for nostalgia’s sake, which Sly enlivened with several functional short flashbacks. And why not admit it, I have a soft spot for this hard-working "Italian Stallion".

I wouldn't have expected such a bland performance from Norton (another Italian Job?), and maybe he didn't even know what ear-splitting lines the script would force him to let out of his mouth. The only thing that keeps this below-average fable afloat, with the look of a slightly more expensive TV production, is the great (and better from film to film) Giammatti, while the final Shyamalan-like twist stands on very shaky legs. And I might rename the whole film to "Hologram Man" – Eisenheim's stunts in the second half were closer to science fiction than to illusory shenanigans (nasty nitwit Lima).

Mitchum's absolutely delicious, characteristically ambiguous Dr.March is great – cynical and almost reprehensible in his relationship with his wife. On the other hand, his correct and almost fanatically consistent adherence to medical ethics seemed out of this world in the context of the lax attitude of his colleagues. Such a well-written character was just a joy to watch. Add to that the enjoyable and talented Sinatra and de Havilland and a nice emotional ending, then I'll slap on a 4* without even blinking.

The atmosphere and the production design are flawless (I simply love films with this retro mood), unfortunately the story seemed too skeletal and it was even missing De Palma's visual tricks like in Snake Eyes or The Untouchables. Hartnett's sonorous, deep voice was beautifully suited to the role of the narrative guide, and at times it even seemed that De Palma had turned him into something called an "actor", but then the ghost of Gittes from the similarly tuned Chinatown appeared before my eyes and I immediately dismissed the idea. Hartnett tries, but he can't play the dark strings, he's such a "sunny boy", every moment I expected him to rip off his jacket and hat and jump on a skateboard, and that leaves the characters of actors a class better than him – Eckhart and Johansson – without much room to be more engaging. All in all, it comes out to a – forgettable – three points.

Of the many recent political dramas commenting on contemporary problems of civilization, this film is one of the best, along with Syriana. This one deals with the problems of today's Africa, with the growing influence of multinational pharmaceutical companies and the harmful interference by corrupt officials and governments in the work of NGOs. Unlike the somewhat aloof and cold Syriana, however, Meirelles's film is told more clearly (without a barrage of names) and, thanks to the big theme of love beyond the grave, is more emotional, including an impressive ending that lifted the final impression to the absolute. I didn't think Rachel Weisz's performance was Oscar-worthy, but I kept the scenes with her in front of my eyes even after the film was over. Maybe I’m in love? :)

If there's one film in the last year that I unexpectedly completely missed, it was this one. William Macy under the direction of horror personality Stuart Gordon and a screenplay from the pen of David Mamet, one of the most respected screenwriters in Hollywood today? An unusual connection...good. I was looking forward to it! And it was like a cold shower. For the first third or so, the film is kept afloat by a likeable politically incorrect approach to some of the characters and by Macy, who’s fun to watch even if he’s reading from the phone book the whole time he’s on screen. Starting with the unbelievable (in a bad way) scene between Edmond and Glenn, I stopped believing everything that happens in the story; the words “unnatural” and “unbelievable” describe it well. Whether it's the development of the main character, individual scenes that would make your toes curl, and most importantly, I haven't heard such screwed-up, unnatural dialogue in a movie in a long time, including the philosophizing of the two convicts at the very end (I really didn't know whether to laugh or cry). A 76-minute cinematic torture, perhaps misunderstood on my part, but in this case I don't regret it.

This is one of those films that fizzles through your head quite painlessly and doesn't leave behind any unpleasant hangover. In short, a classic Disney product "for the whole family" (which always pays handsomely in overseas cinemas), touchingly transparent and predictable, with boilerplate characters; the perfect 100-minute brain off-switch. The whole thing is reliably kept in the waters of tolerability by the eternal boy Mark Wahlberg, and those who don't care for club fandom beyond the grave may be amused by the fact that American football is put in a sort of religious position here, with its worshippers spouting adorable catchphrases. Well, you tell me, is it even possible to be angry at a film where one of the characters, with a completely serious face, says to his son: “You know how I used to tell you about Van Buren scoring that touchdown back in '48? That touchdown got me through 30 years at that factory. Got me through all those times your mother being sick.”

A pleasant surprise, which I hadn't even hoped for after the uninteresting prequel. Except perhaps for the first 20 minutes or so, with some wannabe-funny dialogue in the vein of its predecessor, for which Smith deserves to be raped by Gandalf's staff, but starting with the great verbal duel Randal vs LOTR fans, the film catches its second wind and I enjoyed all the movie quotes, allusions to current modern trends and the dialogues with funny life observations, including Randal's surprising emotional outburst at the end. So, unexpectedly for me, I'm happy to rank this sequel alongside the smart Dogma and Chasing Amy.