D.Moore

It's all based on a well-used idea, a likeable Joseph Gordon-Levitt and a badass Jamie Foxx. Not enough for you? Well, it's good enough for me.

A seamless action flick that I was happy to forgive. In fact, Skyscraper had the same effect on me as some of the (now so-called classic) Schwarzenegger or Stallone movies – they weren't always masterpieces, but those two gentlemen were the reason I enjoyed watching them every time, and the reason I enjoyed those movies. Dwayne Johnson is cut from the same cloth this time around. He's charismatic, tough, you root for him even when you know everything is going to turn out well; you have fun. I especially appreciate that after crap like Jumanji, Rampage, and San Andreas, Johnson is in something that isn't completely goofy or parodic, but that takes itself seriously within the genre of expensive B-movies, and only occasionally lightens things up with humor. Plus, there's the cool idea of the protagonist having a prosthetic leg, which he makes use of a lot, and the crane scene, for example, is so over the top it's excellent (Jablonsky's music stands out during this one, as it does elsewhere as well; though simple and routine, it adds atmosphere). I wasn't expecting much and I am satisfied.

It's an excellent and, above all, well-cast comedy, but it can also grab you by the heart. It's impossible not to root for Florence Pugh, Nick Frost is a hundred and twenty percent funny, and Dwayne Johnson is about a thousand times funnier than he was in both Jumanjis combined. I recommend it to everyone, especially those waiting for the next season of GLOW.

It is unfortunate when a film is named after the protagonist, who then turns out to be the least interesting character of all. It’s a shame, because Artemis Fowl had huge potential; the books and comics were very good, but the best part of them, Artemis himself, did not succeed in crossing over to film. In the books he is the child equivalent of the most cunning Bond villain, in the movie he is little more than an unpleasant boy. That’s about it. No matter how hard Kenneth Branagh and Patrick Doyle try, no matter how good the other actors are, Artemis simply did not work out. However, it is fair to say that it definitely wasn’t as terrible as some viewers outside of the target audience believe.

The fantastic Rosamund Pike has won her best role yet in Private War, something comparable to what the role of Dian Fossey was for Sigourney Weaver in Gorillas in the Mist. A strong and powerful heroine, a character who actually existed, 100% believable. I don't know about you, but I don't think I've ever heard of Maria Colvin, yet the film introduced me to her playfully (surely a credit to the director, a documentary director who for some reason gets no respect here) and truly surprised me on several occasions. You can just tell that this isn't a story squeezed out of nothing, it really happened. It made sense to film it and it makes sense to see it.

A slightly above average film that could have been more. Maybe it's because I haven't read the books, but I kept feeling like I needed to know more about the world in which The Hunger Games takes place in order to believe that such a thing was really possible. That's why I had trouble accepting the idea that there's been a killing contest for 74 years, the purpose of which is, among other things, to pacify the population, and that people have accepted it and somehow it works. Sci-fi or not, the world in which a story takes place should simply be believable. However, I have to give The Hunger Games credit for its fine cast (except that the main antagonist should not have been such a similar type as the main male protagonist, I kept getting them mixed up), the nice pacing that made the two hours and something pass pretty quickly, and James Newton Howard's score. Directionally, however, it was no miracle, and I don't think I'll remember any of the scenes – hopefully the next installments will turn out better in that respect at least, since Francis Lawrence has been placed at the helm.

Well, dreadful. But sometimes I laughed at this half-witted variation, simply because I had to.

I don't think the strong feelings here are all that necessary; Charlie's Angels isn't a particularly bad film, but at the same time, sadly, it's not a particularly good one either. And the much-criticized Kristen Stewart is the most sympathetic of the central trio. I guess it's a shame that Elizabeth Banks wrote and directed the whole thing herself, because at least the action scenes didn't have to look like something out of a TV series and could have been engaging if someone more skilled had taken them on. As it is, a film with a very promising plot and an appealing cast drowns in less than two hours of lukewarm entertainment for the undemanding, which heats up only occasionally.

Weird. Very. While I liked the colorful hypnotic atmosphere supported by Jóhannsson's unsettling music, With its mysticism, overwrought monologues and dialogue, excessive running time, and the wait for a final showdown that was ultimately the most boring scene of the entire film, I was ultimately disappointed by Mandy. And I hadn't even expected anything from it in the first place.

At first glance, it's a kind of seventies macho flick; at second, third, and fourth glance, it's a very cunning and psychological matter, which is about a great deal more than just someone getting revenge for something someone else did to them. The tension gets more and more intense, the four adventurers gradually take on different shades, the viewer has to ask himself how he would act in their place... Thanks to John Boorman and his rapid dives you will be transported directly to the scene of the action, and thanks to the impeccable cast led by Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight, you will live through it all and maybe even survive.