A modernized story of Cain and Abel

The story is about two brothers, one of whom is a favorite of a single father, and the other a problematic rebel without a cause (pun intended). Believing that their mother is dead, Aron grows up in the image of his pious and self-righteous father, while Cal is a typical rebellious teenager who tries to win his father's love and attention in all the wrong ways, sinking deeper into despair and anger.

When Cal discovers that their mother is alive, who she is, what she is, and why she left the family, he sets off on the road to Hell that's paved with good intentions, which makes him even more estranged from the family and results in a tragic outcome. However, in a typically Hollywood manner, the end is disguised as a happy ending.

"East of Eden" is a partial adaptation of the eponymous novel by John Steinbeck. Paul Osborn was nominated for an Oscar for this screenplay, but although the story is pretty well written, I wouldn't rate it that high.

Cal was supposed to be played by Marlon Brando, who dropped out because he was too old for the role, so it went to seven years younger James Dean, who, ironically, doesn't look any younger, and I couldn't identify him with a teenager. In addition to this visual barrier, Dean's overacting was extremely irritating to me, and this film only confirmed the opinion, gained after "Rebel Without a Cause", that his and his film's reputation were caused more by his untimely death than by objective quality. From my perspective, comparing Dean to Brando is blasphemy.

Raymond Massey and Richard Davalos, in the roles of father Adam and brother Aron, gave good performances, but they did not leave a special impression, mostly because they did not have much space to show what they got. Jo Van Fleet won an Oscar and her only nomination in a three-decade-long career for her debut role on the big screen, inspired by the biblical Eve. And there is Julie Harris, in the role of Abra, a girl next door, torn between the brother she was promised and the other she secretly loves. To me, Abra is the only likable character in the film who is easy to sympathize with.

This cult Kazan's drama is considered a masterpiece and belongs to general culture, but apart from interesting biblical references and allusions in the construction of characters and their names, I have not been able to find anything worthy of attention here and experienced it as just another in a sea of melodramas of its time.

6/10

Bruce Lee comes and beats everyone up

Shaolin fighter leaves the temple and on a private island, hidden from the public eye, engages in shady business. Every three years, he holds a major martial arts tournament. Years later, his teacher sends another fighter to, under the guise of participating in the tournament, investigate the island and find evidence that would lead to exposing this criminal organization.

"Enter the Dragon" is the first Chinese martial art film produced by a major Hollywood studio, but also the last film made by the prematurely deceased Bruce Lee.

"Enter the Dragon" is very similar to the movies from the early James Bond series, especially Han, who is a classic Bond villain. There is no depth or philosophy here, the story is full of holes and illogicalities and serves only as a background for non-stop action.

The acting varies from bad to mediocre. However, most of the characters you see on the screen are not actors. The streets of Hong Kong are not filled with extras, but the film was shot in a real environment. Fighters on the island were picked up from the Triads, and there were clashes between members of opposing gangs during the filming. Also, for the roles of prostitutes, the real prostitutes were hired.

In every aspect, "Enter the Dragon" is mediocre at best, so if you're looking for a quality story, acting, art photography, or some deeper meaning from a movie, bypass this one in a wide arc. But if you want to have fun with continuous action and top martial arts performances, you are in the right place, because in that respect, the magic of the legendary Bruce Lee is unsurpassed to this day.

6/10

"If you build it, he will come."

While working in a cornfield, a small farmer heard a mysterious voice, which repeated this sentence to him, and then for a moment got a vision of the baseball field. Although common sense dictated that he ignore this event, his inner feeling strongly drove him to obey, so he cleaned one larger piece of his cornfield and built it.

Then the voice reappears and sends him in search of certain people. Although the construction of the diamond ate up all his savings and reduced his yields, bringing him to the brink of bankruptcy, he embarks on a journey across America, not knowing exactly what he is looking for or why. His only motivation was a strong inner feeling that something essential would happen in the end.

In America, baseball is what football is to the English, a national sport that has been and remains constant throughout all periods of this nation, since the middle of the nineteenth century. That is why this film has much more power for the average American than for us, to whom this game is quite foreign.

But essentially, "Field of Dreams" is not a film about baseball, but baseball is just a nice background for the story of human nature and how important our desires and dreams are in finding ourselves and the meaning of life. This is a story about the importance of an open mind, and even more an open heart, about friendship, family, and love.

After the role of a minor league baseball player in the excellent sports-love drama "Bull Durham" from 1988, Kevin Costner accepted the role in another baseball film the following year, but this time, although in the lead role, he did not show much. He remained in the shadow of some much more striking supporting characters.

Even Ray Liotta, in the role of a legendary baseball player, around whom this story seems to revolve, did not particularly strike me. I think that his wicked expression is more suited for completely different roles.

But Burt Lancaster nailed the role of a player who narrowly missed a career in professional baseball, dedicated himself to the medical profession, and left a deep mark in the community in which he spent his life. Although "Moonlight" Graham is a supporting character in this story, he is a historical figure and has a much more thoroughly constructed background and characterization than Costner and Liotta, and his life philosophy is emotionally powerful.

And finally, the writer Terrence Mann, based on the character and work of Salinger, who has such a detailed background and characterization that people often thought that he was a real person. The performance of James Earl Jones is so charismatic and convincing that he stole every scene in which he appears.

"Field of Dreams" may not be a masterpiece of cinematography, but it is certainly an impressive film experience with a message, a lesson, and enough emotion to bring me to the brink of tears on several occasions. Warm recommendation.

8,5/10

"Avoid the green ones. They're not ripe yet."

Tom Georgeson is a thief who plans a diamond heist, so big that it would secure him for life. His team consists of a loyal but clumsy and stuttering animal lover, played by Michael Palin, Jamie Lee Curtis, as his femme fatale girlfriend, and Kevin Kline in the role of her lover, whom she represents as a brother.

When they successfully steal diamonds, everyone, except the seemingly harmless stutterer, starts plotting behind each other's backs, so that they don't have to share the loot. And when the boss ends up in prison, his lawyer John Cleese, who is also the screenwriter and co-director of "A Fish Called Wanda", enters the game.

Things are starting to go south and get tangled up, leading to a series of hilarious situations in a typical Monty Python style. Scene after scene, plot twist after plot twist, "A Fish Called Wanda" will keep your undivided attention from start to finish, while smiles, disbelief, and bursts of laughter take turns on your face.

The story is well-written and doesn't lose pace, witty dialogues alternate with slapstick comedy, and the main trump card of the film is the superior characterization, even of the supporting characters. They are all completely different and very convincing, even though they are ruthlessly caricatured. Personally, my first association with Jamie Lee Curtis is not "Halloween", but "A Fish Called Wanda".

If you like British humor and Monty Python, this is a must-watch.

8/10

"It can't be done."

James Cagney is a producer of theatrical musical comedies who, with the arrival and growing popularity of "talkies", loses his job. That is why he came up with the idea to start making short musical comedies, which would be performed as a prologue before the screening of the film. But when he gets into this business, his ordeal is just beginning.

This romantic musical comedy was very popular and financially successful in its time, and it represented a small revolution in the world of the seventh art. Essentially, this film is just an excuse for three superbly produced sing and dance numbers, three prologues that make up the last third of the film. Although these numbers were superbly designed, performed, shot, and directed, the film overall is lame and I could give up on it at any moment and never wonder what happened next.

It may have caused a stir at the time, but to me, this was a completely redundant film experience, although, I admit, pleasing to the eye.

6/10

"You're gonna learn about loss"

During the trial of the cruel rapist (Robert De Niro), his defense attorney (Nick Nolte), aware of his client's guilt and the danger he poses to society, hides evidence in favor of the client and the client is convicted. Fourteen years later, the psychopath, who worked on his body and education in prison, comes out of it even crazier and more dangerous and begins to stalk and terrorize the lawyer and his family.

This psychological thriller by Martin Scorsese is a remake of the eponymous 1962 film, starring Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum, who both, in supporting roles, also appear in this film.

The basic premise promises a tense and heavy film that will keep you on the edge of your chair. Unfortunately, it did not. Although it has a quality script, Scorsese's direction is good by default, and the cast is even better, the film was unconvincing to me and did not for a moment draw me into an atmosphere of tension and anxiety.

I think the problem is that the actors, although otherwise fantastic, somehow didn't fit into these roles. Scorsese and De Niro seem to be tied with an umbilical cord (nine films and the tenth on the horizon) and that combination has brought us some cult classics. But this time, De Niro is so over-the-top that, instead of being scary, he turned out to be comical, Juliette Lewis unconvincing, and Nick Nolte plain boring.

Ironically, it was De Niro and Lewis who were nominated for an Oscar that year, as the only two nominations for this film. I'm not saying that they acted badly, but that, at least from my perspective, they are not compatible with the roles assigned to them, which are probably intended to deepen the characterization, quite two-dimensional in the original, but now too overemphasized, and at moments even ridiculous.

It is also interesting that Scorsese directed "Cape Fear" somewhat based on Hitchcock's style, and in several scenes, one can recognize quite obvious homages to some of Hitchcock's classics. Even the music for the film, in addition to rearranged music by Bernard Herman from the original, includes unused parts of Herman's composition for Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain."

All in all, although Scorsese can do it much better, and I certainly wouldn't rewatch it, "Cape Fear" has its moments and it's worth a look.

7/10

"The first half of Home Alone features the sugar-coated sentimentality that can usually be found in a Hughes film, while the second half is full of unanticipated sadism." - TV Guide Magazine

During the Christmas holidays, a large family sets off to Paris, but the youngest child is forgotten at home. They only realize that at the destination, but due to bad weather, the telephone connection is interrupted, and all flights back are overbooked, so the little one stays alone for a few days, in a huge house that he has to defend himself from burglars.

What makes a good movie? How do we define objective quality? I believe that an experienced critic would have many objections to "Home Alone". But...

This film made Macaulay Culkin famous, and I believe that to this day, his role in "Home Alone" is for many the first association with a child actor. His charm and performance, while setting traps for intruders in ingenious ways, have become legendary. And when his opponents are Joe Pesci, to whom this, along with "My Cousin Vinny", is one of the best roles, and Daniel Stern, fun is guaranteed.

When we have a film with a cast like this, when it is not a question of whether you watched it, but how many times you watched it and whether you know it by heart, a film that has become a Christmas tradition to countless families and an unavoidable part of New Year's TV program. A film whose last half hour will make you roll on the floor laughing, even if you watch it for the hundredth time, ... what rating can we give to such a film except the highest!

10/10

"Home Alone is the apex, the pinnacle, the culmination of every bad bit Hughes has ever written or directed. It overflows with primitive, disastrously unfunny sight gags and neo-hateful familial humor." - Austin Chronicle, Marc Savlov

"You gave me my first glimpse of real life. Then you asked me to go on with the false one."

Martin Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence" brings us a love triangle in the world of high society in late nineteenth-century New York.

Although I don't have any objections from the technical side, photography, acting and music are really great, the story is one of the most boring I've seen in my life. For two and a half hours I watched Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, and Michelle Pfeiffer, actors I like very much, in a pathetic melodrama in which almost nothing happens, how they vegetate in quiet suffering and live unhappy lives, based on false morals and socially acceptable behavior.

For over two hours I waited for at least something to happen, until the end which had the potential to bring the story to some extent, but that chance was missed and drowned out by a pretentious scene that probably aimed at some strength and depth, but in fact, is only a little more pathetic. I have the impression that I watched one of those countless Turkish or Latin American soap operas, only performed by a more experienced and professional team with a stronger budget.

When we add to that the irritating voice-over narration, which cuts the film every now and then, the only reason I stuck until the end was the nostalgia for the youthful "crush" on Michelle Pfeiffer.

6/10

"There must be a full moon tonight."

Griffin Dunne is an office clerk who, at ten in the evening, accepts an invitation to visit a girl (Rosanna Arquette) whom he met a little earlier that day in a cafe. From the moment he got into a taxi and headed to Soho, things are going totally crazy and he soon decides he just wants to get home as soon as possible. But, he falls into a vicious circle of extremely bizarre surreal situations, which function like quicksand - the more he tries to get out and go home, the more he gets entangled and falls into a state of panic and hopelessness.

Even if I wanted to spoil your experience, I probably wouldn't be able to retell this crazy black humor adventure. The excellent cast (besides Griffin and Rosanna, there are also Verna Bloom, Tommy Chong, Linda Fiorentino, Teri Gar, Cheech Marin, Catherine O'Hara) very impressively presents a whole range of eccentric characters in completely insane situations. The atmosphere is tense, almost palpable, like in a noir or thriller, or maybe a nightmare on Acid, with a strong stamp of '80s B production. The tempo is perfectly balanced, and the humor is dark and morbid, in a way that entertains you but doesn't really make you laugh.

Imagine Terry Gilliam making an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in which he parodies Hitchcock's style, filling it with "easter egg" details along the way, such as a sentence from the title, an obvious reference to Griffin's role in "An American Werewolf in London". If this sounds tempting, "After Hours" will be a real treat for you.

8/10

"Shoot the dog."

The housewife and mother of an eleven-year-old boy suddenly becomes a widow, leaves the family home in New Mexico, and sets on a trip to her hometown in California, intending to realize her childhood dream and become a singer.

"Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" is, for its time, a somewhat feminist film, directed by Scorsese, who, accepting this job, himself stated that he knew nothing about women and the female perspective, but was willing to learn. The approach to the story is interesting, because it brings a combination of the "macho" perspective of the director and the "feminist" perspective of the producer and lead actress Ellen Burstyn, who won her only Oscar for this performance.

I say interesting, but of questionable quality. Critics were divided around this film and, while some lifted it to the stars, others called it empty and mediocre. I am more inclined to join the latter.

"Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore takes a group of well-cast film players and largely wastes them on a smaller-than-life film - one of those 'little people' dramas that make one despise little people." - Variety

The story itself left me completely indifferent, although I was not bored. While I certainly wouldn't rewatch it, there are a couple of moments that made me glad I saw it. The most impressive thing about this film is the introductory scene, shot on a soundstage with a painted background and coulisse, as a tribute to "The Wizard of Oz". What follows is an unforgettable outburst of anger from Harvey Keitel, and there is also the "this boy looks so familiar" moment, which a moment later turns into "wow, it's Jodie Foster as a kid" revelation.

If you don't expect too much, it's worth a look.

6/10

And how am I supposed to kill bugs from now on?!

Minuscule in French means tiny, which applies to both the format and the content of this beautiful animated series. The titles of the episodes in English are written in small initial letters, which is another meaning of the word minuscule.

Each episode brings us a separate story about insects (sometimes some other tiny creatures, such as spiders and snails) lasting about five minutes. It's just amazing what can fit in such a short time.

Insects are visually presented quite realistically, but the stories themselves are caricatured versions of their way of life, very wittily used to entertain and teach us at the same time. There is no dialogue in the series, but the stories are told with pictures and very impressive use of sound effects.

Bright colors, silly sound effects, and surreal situations are also accessible to small children, while adults can find a certain philosophical depth in these stories. And the strongest asset of the series is a positive atmosphere, full of life's joy that is inexorably transmitted to the viewer.

Ladybug and grasshopper are quite villains, but you just can't help but like them and laugh at their petty mischief. And when you see an unfortunate spider in the role of a victim, you will hesitate to slap it with a slipper next time you see one. If the child in you is not completely gone, there is no chance that "Minuscule" will not improve your mood.

According to IMDb, the series consists of 175 episodes, but the DVD release contains 6 discs with 13 episodes each, which is not even half of the total number, and I did not manage to find much more on YouTube either. But as the episodes bring separate stories, not being all in number won't diminish your experience.

9/10

"Better to be king for a night than schmuck for a lifetime."

In Scorsese's "The King of Comedy", Robert De Niro (who else ...) plays an ambitious but unsuccessful stand-up comedian, who stops at nothing to gain fame. After persistently stalking the famous talk show host, played by Jerry Lewis, our anti-hero finally realizes that he will not support and push him, so he decides to kidnap him, in order to blackmail him to appear on television in prime time, even if only for one night.

"The King of Comedy" had no Oscar nominations and experienced a financial fiasco, returning only about ten percent of the money invested. Too bad, because it's great in every way.

The story combines black comedy with psychological drama and a top-notch character study of the main protagonist, and the characterization in other roles doesn't lag far behind. De Niro perfectly portrayed an obsessively ambitious neurotic and left us the unforgettable Rupert Pupkin, who, given the unexpected unfolding of the story, may not be so crazy after all.

"The King of Comedy" is a satire of the cult of personality and the world of show business, no less relevant today than it was in 1982. Warm recommendation.

8/10

"Tate University - A large football stadium, with a college attached."

The naive nerd comes to college with the desire to become popular at any cost. To that end, he imitates the main character of his favorite movie "The College Hero", and other students support him in that, laughing behind his back. Since the most popular student is the captain of the football team, our clumsy decides to try his hand at American football and become the new star of Tate College.

"The Freshman" is the most successful film by Harold Lloyd, who, together with Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, makes a holy trinity of comedians from the silent film era. It is considered the first sports comedy and the founder of the college comedy genre.

This satire of life in college is a combination of slapstick comedy and situation comedy, with the now-classic lesson of how to stay true to yourself and be who you are, while pretending to be something you think others expect from you will not bring anything good.

In its time, the blockbuster that caused a flood of similar films in the following years, "The Freshman" did not age badly and I think it can entertain even the younger generations, accustomed to modern adrenaline injections, if they approach it without prejudice.

8/10

"A person doesn't have to be perfect to be exactly what you need." TV show too.

In a sea of hospital (melo)dramas that take themselves too seriously, even though their quality is questionable, Bill Lawrence created something different, a hilarious sitcom that takes the best of both genres, placing the "Friends" type of sitcom in a hospital setting. "Scrubs" is a sitcom, with all the features of sitcoms, but it is much more than that.

In addition to the features common to all series of this type, the "Scrubs" team made an effort to think out of the box and bring many innovations and elements atypical of a sitcom to the genre. The most common are inner monologues, which help us get to know and understand the characters much better. Next are slapstick gags, which often go to extremes, so the series has to use stuntmen. And as our protagonist is prone to daydreaming fantasies, many episodes also have surreal scenes, which often require special effects.

The series was not filmed in the studio, but they rented the entire abandoned hospital and the whole team practically lived in it. Over the years they became a kind of big family, and that is felt in the series and makes it more convincing and natural.

The main character of "Scrubs" is Dr. John Dorian (Zach Braff), a young doctor, immature and confused, with a strong emotional side and even more prominent bad luck, especially in love. He is counterbalanced by his best friend and roommate from college, surgeon Christopher Turk (Donald Faison), a sports guy, confident but emotionally closed. Their bromance is the backbone of the series and is one of the best I've seen on television.

Elliot Reid (Sarah Chalke) is a spoiled daddy's princess, who meets real life for the first time in the hospital and, with many professional and love turbulences, finally grows into a doctor and a woman worthy of respect. On several occasions, she gets into affairs with Dorian, which regularly ends badly.

Nurse Carla Espinoza (Judy Reyes) is Eliot's friend and Turk's fiancée. She is bossy and compulsive gossip of "Sacred Heart" hospital.

Dr. Perry Cox, played by the fantastic John C. McGinley ("Platoon", "Stan Against Evil") is a top doctor, arrogant, narcissistic, and extremely entertaining inexhaustible source of sarcastic remarks, Dorian's unofficial mentor, who steals every scene in which he appears.

Jordan (Christa Miller) is his ex-wife (actually the wife of Bill Lawrence, the creator of the series), strong, determined, uncompromising, with a tongue so sharp that she is the only character in the series who is able to steal a scene from Cox. Their love/hate relationship is deeper and stronger than all the other romances in the series.

Neil Flynn plays Janitor who, along with the tireless polishing of hospital floors, always finds time to haunt and stress interns. Along with Cox, Janitor is probably the funniest character in the series.

Sam Lloyd plays a hospital lawyer with an inferiority complex, always on the verge of suicide, except when he practices with his acapella group in hospital elevators.

The head of the hospital, Dr. Bob Kelso, played by Ken Jenkins, is only interested in profit and that no one bothers him. He treats his wife like a dog, his dog like a wife, he is in love with his old-timer and with his mean and/or cold-blooded remarks is a kind of the main villain.

Turk's colleague, surgeon Todd (Robert Maschio), is a sexually burdened latent gay man, obsessed with high-fives, to which he constantly invents new varieties, while trying to crawl under every skirt he sees and pours outrageous jokes.

In addition to the main four, which consists of Dorian, Turk, Elliot, and Carla, and permanent supporting characters, of which I mentioned the most impressive, through "Scrubs" parades a considerable number of guest characters, some only for an episode or two, while others stay longer or occasionally return to the series. Neither of these characters lags behind in their characterization and performance, and some are played by quite famous names, such as Elizabeth Banks, Tara Reid, Heather Graham, Heather Locklear, Michael J. Fox, David Copperfield, Ryan Reynolds, Dick Van Dyke, Matthew Perry, Colin Farrell, Christopher Meloni, and others.

The characterization of all, even the most secondary characters, is fantastic and after a few episodes you get the impression that you know them personally, and after a few seasons, they seem like family. They are very diverse and cover all types of characters, often brought to caricature. Which brings us to humor.

The series is very intelligent and witty written, and uses all kinds of humor, from naive childish, romantic, and friendly, through slapstick and comedy of the situation, to mean irony and sarcasm, and even quite morbid black humor. I can't remember exactly when political correctness became the basic and most powerful principle of modern television and destroyed everything it touched, completely killing the spirit of healthy humor, but there is no trace of that here. Moreover, I noticed a couple of moments that make fun of PC trends.

Although the series lasted the entire first decade of the new millennium, they did not run out of inspiration and themes. They couldn't when they don't hesitate to ruthlessly and shamelessly make fun of all the topics that come to their mind, even those that most of the similar series avoid at any cost. Although I can't think of any really similar ones, except maybe "Ally McBeal".

"Scrubs" skillfully combines all genres into a kind of sitcom, new, original, and refreshing, and it does it very well, which is confirmed by the duration of nine seasons. I started probably about two hundred series, finished maybe fifty, and very few even partially rewatched. I'm watching "Scrubs" for the third time in its entirety.

10/10

Terry Pratchett rolls over in his grave

I'm a big fan of Terry Pratchett. I have all the books published in my language, and after reading them several times, I switched to reading the remaining ones in the original. You can imagine how much I look forward to each new screen adaptation of his ingenious novels, especially considering that everything I've watched so far has ranged from very good to great.

After the first episode of "The Watch", I lost all desire to watch further. But it is an "adaptation" of my favorite writer, so I decided to give the series a chance, hoping that it will improve in time. Mother of God, how wrong I was. I'm not one to hate any adaptation that doesn't stick to the original material, but "The Watch" is a failure of epic proportions.

The story is based on Pratchett, but it combines elements of several novels and changes the original material so much that it cannot be considered an adaptation in the true sense. Considering that it is clearly written in the opening credits that the series was INSPIRED BY CHARACTERS CREATED BY TERRY PRATCHETT, and not that it is a faithful adaptation of a certain novel, it is not fair to criticize the changes in the story, even if the title is taken from a specific novel.

The characters are another story. Apart from personal names, they have little in common with Pratchett's.

Captain Sam Vimes is a depressed alcoholic, and Richard Dormer could probably bring him to life on TV properly. Unfortunately, the authors of the series made this character a silly hybrid of Popeye and Captain Jack Sparrow. But Vimes did well compared to the other characters. Lady Sybil is black, because having a purely white cast in the 21st century is a mortal sin. Although, if they could do it in "The Dark Tower", why wouldn't they do it here... Angua, who in human form should be a femme fatale (if memory serves), is a punk girl in the body of a twelve-year-old boy. Lord Vetinari is now a woman, and the female dwarf is played by a transsexual two-meter guy. Only Carrot is quite faithful to the book, although the joke that he feels and behaves like a dwarf, because he was adopted and raised by dwarves, fails when all the other dwarves in the series are played by people of normal height.

The fight against discrimination, religious, racial, and sexual tolerance, and diversity are all right, but stop destroying more of my favorite literary works for the sake of political propaganda and write new original scripts that will implement political correctness and woke culture. And if you really want to adapt to other people's works, adapt properly.

But ok, if I stretch my tolerance to the breaking point and forget for a moment that I'm a Pratchett fan, and remind myself that the series is only INSPIRED by Pratchett's characters, I could turn a blind eye even to these character changes. Moreover, Joni Ayton-Kent as a transgender dwarf was perhaps the most likable character in "The Watch". I say 'I could', if other aspects of the series were worth at least something.

"The Watch" does not mention Discworld, a flat world carried by four elephants, who travel through space on the shell of a giant turtle, so we don't even know where the series actually takes place. It may not matter for this story, but I believe it bothered the fans. Furthermore, Ank-Morpork has been modernized and given a steampunk atmosphere that doesn't suit it, especially not in combination with wizards and dragons.

But let's ignore all the comparisons with the original material and look at "The Watch" as a separate achievement, through the eyes of someone who has never read Pratchett. Even from that perspective, "The Watch" simply is not good.

The story is uninteresting and poorly told. It will be unclear to those who have not read Pratchett, while fans will experience it as blasphemy. So who the hell was it written for?! The acting is mediocre at best, the production is cheap, we saw better effects twenty years ago, the sound is bad, and the speech of the characters is so slurred that it is practically impossible to watch the series without subtitles.

And finally, what disappointed me the most. Terry Pratchett was an incredibly witty person. His series about Discworld is an immensely entertaining satire of humanity in all its aspects, full of imaginative metaphors and hilarious descriptions, dialogues, and adventures. His novels are so funny that it is not advisable to read them in public, so that people would not look at you like a madman. Not a few times have I literally burst out laughing while reading his books, and you will hardly find a single page that will not make you at least smile.

In "The Watch", I did not notice the satire of society, there is no intelligent humor in characterization, situations, or dialogues, and during eight episodes, not a single time did it make me smile, let alone laugh. And not only is it not funny - it's pretty dull.

I could accept the changes in the story and the characters, no matter how great they were. I could even swallow the imposition of PC and Woke norms. But to take Pratchett's text and turn it into something so unfunny and even boring is a crime that cannot be forgiven.

3/10

"For guys like me, Las Vegas washes away your sins."

The main role in Scorsese's film "Casino" from 1995 is played (what a surprise) by Robert De Niro. Ace is a gambler with a murky past, who, with the help of mafia connections, becomes the commander-in-chief of a successful casino in Vegas. Except for regular payments to the bosses who brought him there, he tries to live and work as legally as possible.

On the other hand, his childhood friend Nicky (Joe Pesci) follows him to Vegas and takes over the underground, unscrupulously removing everyone in his path, which jeopardizes Ace's reputation, as well as the business itself.

This gradually leads to a split and even rivalry between the two friends, and things get even worse when Ace marries a well-known local 'gold digger', played by Sharon Stone.

De Niro's character is capable, ambitious, calculated, maybe a bit cold, but within the framework of the mafia film, Ace is something closest to a good guy. Pesci's character and performance are the same as in many other films where he plays a mobster. Maybe similar roles don't make a great actor, but this type definitely suits him and he is among the best movie mobsters. Sharon has a doctorate in femme fatale, but the way Ginger is in the second half of the film makes her one of the most strikingly disgusting female characters I can remember. Towards the end, every scene with her made me sick.

The technical aspects of the film are at a high level and the general atmosphere bears a strong stamp of Scorsese's style, but the overall impression it left on me is quite weak. I experienced it as just another in a sea of similar mafia stories, which I was not bored with, but which I could also stop at any moment and never wonder where it led.

However, the dose of the author's subjective taste is something from which even the most objective and competent analyzes and reviews cannot completely distance themselves, let alone the amateur reviews of the ordinary viewer. As even the legendary "The Godfather" did not amaze me and, although it is very good, I do not rank it even close to the best films of all time, I must take into account that probably this whole film genre is 'not my cup of tea' and that it is questionable how much my subjective impressions weigh.

7/10

LOTR for children

During World War II, a mother sent her four children inland to ward them off from German bombing. They are sheltered by an elderly professor who lives in a castle. Playing hide-and-seek around the house, the children, through a seemingly ordinary wardrobe, reach the magical land of Narnia, ruled by an evil witch. They soon discover that they are destined to defeat the witch with the help of various mythological and fairy-tale creatures and free Narnia from slavery and eternal winter.

"The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" is the first film in "The Chronicles of Narnia" trilogy, based on the novels of C. S. Lewis. The story is something between a classic fairy tale and epic fiction similar to Tolkien's, but simplified and more appropriate for children, with an obvious but unobtrusive religious subtext (Aslan/Jesus).

The similarities with "The Lord of the Rings" are not accidental, because the author C. S. Lewis was a friend of Tolkien and both were members of the same literary club, where they were exchanging ideas. For that reason, the comparison with Jackson's films is inevitably self-imposed during the viewing, and in relation to "LOTR", this (and more or less everything else in the genre) seems pathetic. I think that "Narnia" would leave a much stronger impression if it was filmed before "LOTR". Now it seems like a step backwards.

The four children-actors performed their roles quite satisfactorily, especially considering that this was the first, or at least the first serious role for everyone, except Anna Popplewell. Most likable is then ten-year-old Georgie Henley, whose many scenes are extremely convincing because she didn't actually act them, but they put her into the scenes without prior preparation, in order to get her natural reactions.

Among the more famous names are Jim Broadbent and James McAvoy, and the undisputed star of the film is the magnificent Tilda Swinton in the role of the main villain, the White Witch.

In addition to the above, a large part of the film falls on imaginative and very beautifully done CGI characters from fairy tales and mythologies, and the landscapes of New Zealand are a real feast for the eyes. If it was directed by Del Toro, to whom it was originally offered, this would probably be a much more impressive film experience.

However, the goal was to make a family film for an audience that includes the youngest ones, and that, with honorable exceptions, as a rule, is to the detriment of us adults. My ten-year-old kid loved it. A strong seven from me.

7/10

"My role was less about saving lives than about bearing witness"

Nicolas Cage is an ambulance paramedic who has not saved a single life for months. People have been dying in his arms for too long, one after the other, and his psyche can no longer bear it. He no longer feels like a hero who saves lives, but like a helpless witness to death. As he sinks into alcoholism, the voices and faces of "victims" appear more and more often. He is mostly haunted by Rose, a seventeen-year-old girl for whose death he feels personally responsible, and guilt drives him to madness.

"Bringing Out the Dead" takes us through several painful nights of an ambulance cruising the streets of New York. We will meet several paramedics, who approach this job very differently and try to cope with the stress and transience of life in various ways. While one experiences the whole thing as an adrenaline roller coaster, the other turns to religion, and our hero seeks salvation in alcohol. In the filth of the metropolis, we meet a variety of interesting and crazy characters, who at the same time provide this drama with comic relief and instill chill in the bones. And there is also Patricia Arquette, a former drug addict, the daughter of one of the victims, who slips into an unusual symbiosis with our hero.

What to expect from Scorsese's film, which is almost independently presented by Nicolas Cage ... "Bringing Out the Dead" is a rather harrowing drama, spiced with a dose of black humor, which combines the surreal and eccentric story and atmosphere of Scorsese's "After Hours" with the emotion, energy, and performance of Cage's "Leaving Las Vegas". A very unusual achievement that, I believe, many will not like, but if you like at least one of these two movie legends, don't skip it.

7,5/10

"You were older then. As opposed to hundreds of years later... when you're younger."

A year after returning to England and having a hard time getting used to it and coming to terms with ordinary teenage life, our heroes are called back to Narnia. In the meantime, many centuries have passed here, their friends have been gone for a long time, and Narnia is facing a new danger. Humans have somehow penetrated this magical world and creatures from myths and fairy tales are threatened with extinction. It is up to the young kings and queens to restore order.

"Prince Caspian" is stylistically true to the first film, technically it's a bit better, especially visually, but although the script continues directly to the one from "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", the story is now much darker and more serious. While the first film is an imaginative epic adventure for children, this one is too unimaginative, complex, and violent for the youngest, and yet too banal and shallow for adults. The characterization is two-dimensional, and the story is just a clichéd excuse for the fight scenes, to which the film essentially comes down.

There are more similarities with "The Lord of the Rings" than in the first movie and they are much more obvious. As this novel was published first, we cannot accuse Lewis of copying Tolkien, but Tolkien used and elaborated these motives much better and gave them meaning and depth, so here they seem wasted.

"The Chronicles of Narnia" saga is so naive and simplified that it can only be intended for children, and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" with its gleaming fairytale atmosphere manages to be a good and interesting children's film. "Prince Caspian", on the other hand, no longer has that sparkly positivity and fairytale-likeness, it becomes too gloomy and difficult for children, and it also fails to accommodate any other target group. However, although it took a step back in the script, in all other aspects it made a step forward, so I leave a seven, albeit a shade weaker than the one I gave to the first film.

7/10

In a world of shit

"Personally, I think, uh... they don't really want to be involved in this war. You know, I mean... they sort of took away our freedom and gave it to the, to the gookers, you know. But they don't want it. They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."

"Full Metal Jacket" follows a group of young men from the beginning of their training for the Marines, through their arrival in Vietnam, until the culmination of the story, when their unit tumbles into deadly sniper fire in the ruins of a city. It is divided into a period of training in a military camp and a period on the battlefield, two segments whose story and atmosphere are in striking contrast, so much so that they can be experienced as separate films.

The first segment shows physical and military training, combined with breaking the individuality and dehumanization of the recruits and turning them into killing machines. What stands out especially in this segment are the performances of R. Lee Ermey, a ruthless sergeant whose methods border on abuse, and Vincent D'Onofrio, who plays a slightly retarded and obese recruit, who breaks down mentally under the pressure of harassment and brainwashing. His final scene was for me the most impressive and creepy moment in the film, which stands side by side with Nicholson's performance in "The Shining". Although this first segment lasts less than an hour, it is a perfectly rounded independent whole, which would be an excellent movie even without the second segment.

The second segment, in my opinion, is drowning in a sea of similar war films and the story did not leave a special impression on me, but Kubrick's directing still raises it above average level. Although, I'm not a fan of war films (I really don't like them), so it is questionable how objective I can be in terms of their quality.

Michael Cimino's masterpiece, the 1978 film "The Deer Hunter", launched a series of anti-war films about Vietnam in the 1980s, including the cult "Platoon" by Oliver Stone and "Good Morning, Vietnam" by Barry Levinson. For the audience that saw them all, Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket", from 1987, is seemingly just another in the series and its story brings nothing new.

What sets "Full Metal Jacket" apart from that series is Kubrick's writing and directing, the flowing camera work, top photography, perfectly balanced tempo, raw dialogues, morbid humor, Mickey Mouse theme (he wanted Woody Woodpecker, but couldn't get rights) which, contrary to its nature, intensifies the feeling of discomfort here, and some really fantastic acting performances, among which the most impressive is that of Vincent D'Onofrio.

8/10

"My name is Dewey Finn. And no, I'm not a licensed teacher, but I have been touched by your kids. And I'm pretty sure that I've touched them."

Jack Black is an unaffirmed rocker with no prospect of achieving anything on or off the music scene. With no money in his pocket, he lives on the backs of his roommate Ned (Mike White), who retired from the band and started working as a teacher. When he is kicked out of his own band, and his roommate gives him an ultimatum to pay off debts or leave the apartment, Jack makes a desperate move. Posing as Ned, he is employed as a substitute teacher in a prestigious private elementary school, in order to get the money to pay the rent. But, in the music class, he realizes that his students know how to play various instruments and comes up with the idea to form a rock band, that could win the local "Battle of the Bands" competition for a prize of 20,000 dollars.

An elite private school with a principal (Joan Cusack) behind whose strict exterior hides a completely different nature, a diverse bunch of typical ten-year-olds (a rebel, a nerd, a tattletale, an overweight child, shy one,...), rich parents that expect perfection from their successors and an eccentric substitute teacher who will turn their routine upside down, ... this film unsparingly strings cliché after cliché, and yet, I have to recommend it.

Why...? Because director Richard Linklater, screenwriter Mike White, and charismatic fatso Jack Black managed to compile those clichés into a very watchable and entertaining feel-good film, which, although not hilarious, will keep your attention and a constant smile on your face. When you add a soundtrack composed of cult rock classics, plus a couple of original songs, and as icing on the cake the fact that their gigs are not on playback, but adorable kids really play their instruments, I simply can not go below...

7/10

"Here's a useful lesson for you: give up. Just quit. Because in this life, you can't win. Yeah, you can try. But in the end, you're just gonna lose, big time. Because the world is run by the Man. The Man. Oh, you don't know the Man? He's everywhere. In the White House, down the hall, Miss Mullins, she's the Man. And the Man ruined the ozone, and he's burning down the Amazon, and he kidnapped Shamu and put her in a chlorine tank! Okay? And there used to be a way to stick it to the Man, it was called rock 'n roll. But guess what? Oh no. The Man ruined that, too, with a little thing called MTV! So don't waste your time trying to make anything cool, or pure, or awesome, 'cause the Man is just gonna call you a fat washed up loser and crush your soul. So do yourselves a favor and just GIVE UP!"

"The whole place seems to smell of death."

In London, at the end of the nineteenth century, a famous opera singer was mysteriously killed. Her niece, who lived with her, traumatized leaves the house where the murder took place and moves to Italy to live with a family friend. Years later, she falls in love with a mysterious man, marries him, and together they return to the house she inherited from her aunt, a place that evokes unpleasant memories and traumas that come to the surface. The husband, who seemingly tries to help her overcome these traumas and turn from the past to the future, in fact, has hidden motives from the start and, in order to achieve some secret goal, systematically distances her from the outside world and gradually drives her crazy.

George Cukor's "Gaslight" is a remake of the British film, based on a play by Patrick Hamilton, author of the detective melodrama "Rope", which was adapted into the film by the legendary Alfred Hitchcock. The Broadway version of "Gaslight" stars Vincent Price, and although Charles Boyer deservedly was nominated for an Oscar, I think Price would be even more impressive. However, when it comes to Price, I am too biased to be objective.

The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, of which it won two. The above-mentioned, Oscar-nominated Charles Boyer's partner is Ingrid Bergman, who convincingly portrayed the role of a captive darling and her transformation from a mirthful girl, through a woman drowning in depression and madness, to vengeful rage, secured her first Oscar.

The story is well written and skillfully put into moving pictures. The combination of psychological and melodrama, with elements of thriller, is contributed by convincing acting and gothic-noir atmosphere, which slowly and gradually builds tension, until it becomes almost tangible and culminates in a strong emotional ending. Nominations for Best Screenplay, Best Picture, Best Black-and-White Cinematography, and Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration are implied, although the movie won only the latter.

8,5/10

"We have nothing if not belief."

A little bit of "The Goonies", some "Pirates of the Caribbean", a pinch of "Alice in Wonderland", spiced with a dragon. The third "The Chronicles of Narnia" movie is beautiful to the eye, but the story is nothing special. "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" is quite a cliché. Composed of elements that we have encountered in various fairy tales, it brings almost nothing new, but this is a fairy tale intended for kids, so we can turn a blind eye. The story is a bit more complex than in previous films, but worse written and seems rushed. The decision not to stick to the original material turned out to be bad, but the film is technically somewhat better than the first two and visually spectacular. All in all, all three movies are around seven out of ten, differing in nuances in certain aspects.

7/10

"In your world, I have another name. You must learn to know me by it. That was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

"Don't tell me I can't do it; don't tell me it can't be done!"

"The Aviator" is a biographical drama, which follows the life of filmmaker and aviator Howard Hughes, from the 1920s to the 1940s. Although today he's better known for films ("Hell's Angels", "Scarface", "The Outlaw"), "The Aviator" deals more with Hughes' shifting boundaries in aviation and his private life, which marked love (Katharine Hepburn, Ava Gardner) and political affairs, as well as a serious form of OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) and germophobia.

Even if you don't know what the film is about, or even what genre it belongs to, sound names like director Martin Scorsese, a phenomenal cast consisting of Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin, Alan Alda, Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, Jude Law, music by Howard Shore, and even five Oscars (out of a total of 11 nominations), are reason enough to watch it.

Scorsese made an effort that each part of the film looked as close as possible to the films of the period in which it takes place, which is especially impressive at the beginning, for example in the scene in which Jude Law appears as Errol Flynn. This is probably the main reason for the Best Cinematography Oscar, which went to Robert Richardson, with whom Scorsese has already collaborated on the films "Casino" and "Bringing Out the Dead".

DiCaprio, as usual, deserved an Oscar and remained only on the nomination. Cate Blanchett gave her best to mimic the mannerism and accent of Katharine Hepburn, but, although she deserved an Oscar for acting, her appearance is not even close to the beauty of the legendary Katharine. Admittedly, Kate irritates me, so my objectivity is questionable. It is interesting that with this role, she became the first person to win an Oscar by playing another Oscar winner. Kate Beckinsale is as enchanting as ever, and John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin, Alan Alda (also nominated), and Ian Holm give the film an impressive charm.

Technically, the film is top-notch in every aspect, but it lacks essence. It consists of parts perfectly made and put together, and it doesn't lack even emotional strength, but it has no point, leads nowhere, ends abruptly, and even with some sort of cliffhanger. I enjoyed every minute of its three hours, but it lacks something essential that would complement technical perfection and make it a timeless masterpiece.

8/10

"Technology may have advanced, but sin remains unchanged."

The film looks like an amateur fan-made homage, but a true "Hellraiser" fan would never desecrate his favorite franchise like this. Somewhat interesting premise, but in all aspects very poorly developed and realized. I believe that this is another one of those scenarios that gathered dust in the studio, so elements of Barker's mythos were subsequently added to them to fit into the franchise. The film does not deserve any detailed analysis. Clumsy and lame.

3/10

"I don't want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me."

The South Boston Irish mafia boss, Frank Costello, has been raising his protégé (Matt Damon) since he was a child to one day grow into a respected police inspector, take some good position in the police and, with information and misconduct, keep him and his criminal organization safe. On the other hand, the character of Leonardo DiCaprio goes straight from the police academy to prison, in order to gain criminal credibility, infiltrate the Irish mafia and lead to Costello's arrest. The whole film comes down to a game of cat and mouse, in which two informants try to expose each other. And the atmosphere additionally heats up even when they both get involved with the same woman.

The cast consists of really big names (Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, ...) and they all did a great job, except maybe Damon, who is a bit wooden.

The Oscars for directing and editing are deserved, but, although the script and the film itself are at a high level, those two Oscars, in my opinion, may be misplaced. Although I didn't check the competition that year, I doubt there were not any better ones. The film is complex, the atmosphere is thick and holds the attention for all two and a half hours, but the characterization is at times quite unconvincing and, I would say, caricatured, which is a plus in comedy or satire, but in crime drama and thriller it doesn't hold water.

As the film progresses, the story becomes less and less realistic, and more and more like in comics. There is more and more obvious unnecessary violence, which passes without consequences, and as the corpses pile up, the film becomes more and more unconvincing, and the ending more and more predictable. The very end, which, if the film had been more moderate, would have had a striking surprise effect, is largely losing its force after all that slaughter.

However, the last shot made me sincerely smile. Awesome idea.

8/10

"We fight for men and women whose poetry is not yet written but which will presently be as enviable and as renowned as any."

"Glory" brings us a historic event, "patriotically" colored in a typical Hollywood way. The American Civil War was portrayed as a struggle to abolish slavery, which was just one aspect of the war waged for the same reason as most others, money and power.

Instead of its name being ironic and depicting the true motives, nonsense, and suffering of war, "Glory" is a mediocre story, full of stereotypes and two-dimensional characters. The film is not boring, but it did not touch me emotionally, nor did it leave any stronger impression (except the visual one), and after a few hours it began to fade in my memory, so fast that in a couple of weeks I will not be able to retell it at all.

Although "Glory" features top-notch photography and very good acting and directing, this story deserves an incomparably better script. It won three Oscars, well deserved for cinematography and sound, and arguably for the supporting role of Denzel Washington, and that's about everything that's worth in this film. The rest comes down mostly to pathetic clichés.

7/10

"The only thing standing between you and your goal is the bullshit story you keep telling yourself as to why you can't achieve it."

Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall Street" is based on the autobiography of Jordan Belfort, who, using loopholes in the law, created a multimillion-dollar brokerage empire out of nothing, lived the 'American dream' and ended up in prison.

"My name is Jordan Belfort. I'm a former member of the middle class raised by two accountants in a tiny apartment in Bayside, Queens. The year I turned 26, as the head of my own brokerage firm, I made $49 million, which really pissed me off because it was three shy of a million a week."

The film was flawlessly shot (nominations for best film and directing) and, although it lasts for three hours, it is not boring for a moment, and for the most part it is even very entertaining. Leonardo DiCaprio excelled in the lead role, but, as usual, remained only on the Oscar nomination. He is supported by Jonah Hill (also an Oscar nominee), Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, and many other not-so-famous, but no less good actors.

If you are looking for a dramatic but humorous portrayal of life on a high but shaky leg, a newly rich man who lives fast in crazy sex, drugs, and more drugs manner, you are in the right place. To gain some idea of the explicitness and decadence in the film, it is interesting to note that DiCaprio once cited the Tinto Brass' "Caligula" (1979) as an inspiration and role model for making this movie.

"Let me tell you something. There's no nobility in poverty. I have been a rich man and I have been a poor man. And I choose rich every fuckin' time. Because, at least as a rich man, when I have to face my problems, I show up in the back of the limo, wearing a $2000 suit and a $40,000 gold fuckin' watch."

But, although this story has some indication of social criticism and the potential for a deeper and more serious film, it still remains in the domain of a typical American blockbuster, without much substance and point.

7,5/10

"I've decided, I want the first time to be out of love."

"Love?! Where did you read that?" "I haven't read it, I want it that way."

Trajkovic family has been building bridges for generations. But you can't build bridges all the time in the same place, so this profession involves frequent moves from city to city, from country to country. The youngest offspring of this family is already tired of new schools every semester, new friends that he has to leave just as he made them, and most of all, his love life suffers. Shy 17-year-old Budimir Trajkovic needs more time to gather the courage to approach a girl he likes than his family spends in one place. When they finally move to the capital and Budimir experiences true love for the first time, he decides to take his life into his own hands.

This is a coming-of-age story, a story about family, about youthful love, about those things that we all went through in one way or another, that formed us as personalities. The story and its pace are very realistic and natural, the young protagonists, Predrag Bolpacic and Marina Nemet, are not experienced actors, and the camera and direction leave an amateur impression, which is probably a consequence of cheap production, but in this particular case, it just makes the story more believable.

The film is conceived as a romantic and family comedy, in a manner typical of Yugoslav cinema of the 1970s. While our young protagonists carry the dramatic part of the story, Budimir's family gives the film a 'comic relief', similar to the one in "Foolish Years". Ljubisa Samardzic and Milena Dravic have great chemistry and charisma and with their 'love-hate' relationship they almost overshadow the main thread of the story. There are also Mica Tomic in the role of a grandfather (a bit like the one from "Only Fools and Horses"), Bata Zivojinovic, young Neda Arneric, and Sonja Savic and, what many do not notice when watching, Irfan Mensur and Dragan Nikolic lend voices to Budimir and his friend Zvonko.

"The Love Life of Budimir Trajkovic" is not a masterpiece, far from it, but it is a light, relaxed, emotional, at times quite funny, and very dear to me, movie in which, I believe, each of you can find themselves and evoke some fond memories.

7/10

"I'm just a foreigner who brought disaster."

As expected from Martin Scorsese's film, the technical aspects of "Silence" are all at a high level, but the essence is what turns me off so much, that I couldn't watch it in its entirety. Eventually, I managed to see it as if it was a mini-series, dividing it into four "episodes".

"Silence" is about Portuguese Jesuit priests who went to seventeenth-century Japan, where persecution and genocide of Japanese converts are underway. Their goal is to find a lost missionary, whom they heard had committed apostasy before the Japanese Inquisition.

To risk, and even to sacrifice own life for a loved one (child, partner, friend ...), that I understand. To live in constant fear, hiding underground like an animal, risking death in severe torment for oneself and one's family, stubbornly refusing to renounce religious belief, even if only officially, is not only strange to me, but insane to the point that it makes this movie almost unwatchable.

I am not able to sympathize with the persecuted people, who have caused misery to themselves, nor with the missionaries, who go to the other side of the world, among people who are racially, culturally, and traditionally completely different, to impose their beliefs on them.

For me, it is a fanaticism with which I cannot identify and sympathize, and, therefore, the film varied between boring and irritating, which makes me incompetent and inadequate to judge it ...

"Though undeniably gorgeous, it is punishingly long, frequently boring, and woefully unengaging at some of its most critical moments... Still, viewed through the narrow prism of films about faith, Silence is a remarkable achievement." - Peter Debruge, Variety

7/10 (purely subjective impression, based mainly on visual impact)

"I'd give anything to know what he thought of it." (Chaplin, referring to Hitler)

More than a decade after the appearance of the sound film, Chaplin is shooting his first "talkie" and the most profitable film in his career. It is, of course, legendary "The Great Dictator", a film that combines Chaplin's classic slapstick comedy with an explicit satire of Nazism and antisemitism. The relentless caricature and parody of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler himself led to the film being banned in Germany and all occupied countries, and in Spain, it was prohibited until Franco died in 1975.

In addition to writing and directing, Chaplin plays two main roles, dictator Hynkel, and a Jewish barber who, after an injury in WWI, spends years in hospital and, without any knowledge of the events between the two wars, comes home amid persecution of Jews.

I have never been a big fan of Chaplin's humor and most of his films have left a slim impression on me. Still, here he so skillfully reshaped the tragedy into humor that the power of political and social satire hits right on target, and surpasses my disliking of Chaplin's slapstick style.

Furthermore, some scenes are really memorable, and I would especially like to point out Hynkel's ballet number, which I found extremely funny (they say that Hitler himself laughed). There are also an unexploded bomb, Hynkel's speeches, the meeting of Hynkel and Napaloni (Mussolini), the pudding scene, and, of course, Chaplin's speech that ends the film.

8/10

Farewell of the old-school mobster movie legends

An aging Irish-American looks back on his life and tells us about the decades he spent working as a hitman for the Italian mafia.

With his latest film, Scorsese returns to his roots and pays homage both to his earlier works from the De Niro phase and to the cult titles of the genre. Flawless camerawork and direction are his trademarks, but they are not enough.

I don't see the purpose of this film, which chews over the story seen so many times in the last decades of the last century, without bringing anything new, not even actors. The cast is outstanding, all big names, the SAME names that became famous in "The Godfather" and similar films of that generation. With due respect to the character and work of De Niro, Pacino, Pesci, Keitel, in 2019 they are a bunch of old men, completely unsuitable for the roles they play.

We have often encountered films that cover larger periods of time, where the aging of the characters is achieved with prosthetics and make-up. This time, Scorsese opted for the opposite approach. He took old men, too old even for the end of the story (Pacino in his eighties, playing a character who dies in his sixties), and then rejuvenated them with some new CGI techniques to show their younger days. Even the CGI rejuvenated face of the 75-year-old Robert De Niro, who plays the 40-year-old, is not particularly convincing and seems very artificial, while the body posture and apparent lack of mobility and energy are a complete dealbreaker.

Objectively speaking, if we ignore the nostalgic urges in us who loved these people and their films decades ago, the whole thing is tragicomic. However, such great actors managed to get the most out of themselves and, combined with the inevitable nostalgia, which I believe Scorsese was aiming for, to some extent compensate for the silliness and senselessness of the whole project. Watchable and, at times, even endearing, but ten Oscar nominations are really laughable. Of course, it didn't win a single one.

7/10

It seems I don't love Alba quite enough

A model (Jessica Alba) goes to a private party, somewhere in the English countryside, where she is drugged and imprisoned. A voyeur from the building across the street from hers, who regularly watches her with binoculars, notices her disappearance and comes on a rescue mission.

The kidnapper's (GoT's Jorah Mormont) motives aren't the clearest, aside from being an obvious sociopath, her reactions are also pretty unconvincing, and the kidnapper's housemates (Criminal Minds' Alex Blake, Coupling's Jane, Trainspotting's Spad) are mostly brainless. This does not have even H of a horror film, and it could hardly be classified as a psychological drama or thriller, because the characters are dull and there is not even a trace of tension. The script and its realization are tragically amateurish, on the level of a television movie of a very low-budget studio.

The reason I watched it in the first place was Jessica Alba, and Jessica Alba turned out to be the only thing worth seeing in the film, and only in a purely aesthetic (not to say sexual) sense. Everything else, both essentially and technically, is rubbish and a total waste of time.

3/10

"For all my education, accomplishments, and so-called wisdom, I can't fathom my own heart."

"Hannah and Her Sisters" brings us the story of three sisters, close, but with very different characters. Hannah is a talented actress, who leaves her career to devote herself to the family. Meanwhile, her husband, Elliot, is having an affair with her youngest sister, Lee, while her ex-husband, a television comedy producer, and heavy hypochondriac, ends up with her other sister, Holly, who leads a bohemian life and is trying to make it as an actress.

Woody Allen took real people and real relationships from his own life and dramatized and caricatured them into a film nominated for seven Oscars that everyone can relate to. The backbone of the story is three family Thanksgivings, inspired by Bergman's film "Fanny and Alexander". The first gathering takes place before the plot and introduces us to the characters, the second occurs during the climax of the story, and the third after the denouement. The story is somewhat over-the-top, but it is essentially very realistic and life-like and represents an excellent study of various characters, who, if we honestly look at ourselves and the world around us, are not as eccentric and caricatured as they seem at first glance.

"God, she's beautiful. She's got the prettiest eyes. She looks so sexy in that sweater. I just want to be alone with her and hold her and kiss her and tell her how much I love her and take care of her. Stop it, you idiot, she's your wife's sister. But I can't help it. I'm consumed by her. It's been months now. I dream about her, I - I - I think about her at the office. Oh, Lee, what am I gonna do? I hear myself moaning over you and it's disgusting. Before, when she squeezed past me at the doorway and I smelt that perfume on the back of her neck - Jesus, I - I thought I was gonna swoon. Easy! You're a dignified financial advisor. It doesn't look good for you to swoon."

Mia Farrow plays Hannah, a stable, capable woman who is always there for everyone and asks for nothing in return. She financially and sisterly supports her unstable and vice-prone sister Holly, masterfully played by Dianne Wiest, who deservedly won an Oscar for supporting actress. Michael Caine is Hannah's husband Elliot, a successful financial advisor who is secretly in love with her youngest sister, played by the captivating Barbara Hershey. His character is in the spotlight and the best developed, and his portrayal of moral and emotional turmoil (through which, I believe, every man with a bit of life experience has gone through at least once) won him an Oscar for a supporting male role. Hanna's hypochondriac ex-husband is played by Woody Allen himself. "Hannah and Her Sisters" was his most profitable film up to that point and brought him an Oscar for best screenplay and a nomination for directing.

The story from the head of Woody Allen, which is brought to life by such a strong first cast, is in my opinion a must-watch for every film buff. Especially when you consider that the top five are supported by names like Carrie Fisher, Maureen O'Sullivan, Lloyd Nolan, John Turturro, and Max Von Sydow.

8/10

"I may be as pretty as an angel, but I sure as hell ain't one."

Like most of the Marvel movies up to that point, "Guardians of the Galaxy" is also crazy action infused with humor, in which a clichéd and essentially nonsensical story slips by unnoticed under the constant barrage of CGI fireworks. But unlike many of Marvel's works, which are boring to anyone unable to turn off their brains and indulge in an adrenaline rollercoaster, "Guardians of the Galaxy" brings some pretty interesting characters, with more depth than I expected from a Marvel movie, whose ingenuity and wit are a real refresher in the Marvel Universe. Although there is some humor in all Marvel films, they are SF action adventures, while here we can rightfully add comedy to the genre determinant. I don't like Marvel, but this one I watched several times.

8/10

"Do you care if you live or die?"

The feature debut of the Hughes brothers brings us the story of the life of young people in the Los Angeles ghetto. "Menace II Society" focuses on Caine (Tyrin Turner), the son of a drug dealer father and an addict mother, who grows up surrounded by scum and crime, but to which he does not belong in the soul and from which he tries to escape. Unfortunately, too late.

"Menace II Society" is reminiscent of "Goodfellas" in its structure, and in essence a black version of "American History X". It's relentless and explicitly brutal, and while it's considered one of the most realistic portrayals of 1990s ghetto life, I think it's still rather over the top. Its main assets are the camera and directing, followed by the good acting of most of the characters. But the script is not its strong point.

For the first hour, the film is on the verge of boring, a mediocre crime drama about life in the ghetto, and only in the last third does it gain weight. But just when you are properly drawn into the story, the experience is spoiled by a couple of unnecessarily melodramatic scenes, without real emotional strength, and if you didn't predict the end at the beginning, it will be crystal clear to you now.

Also, the characters only function as part of the group and their environment, while individually they are two-dimensional and you will not get attached to them and sympathize with them. On top of that, the main character is probably the most uninteresting of them all, even irritating at times.

Although extremely negative, O-Dog is by far the most charismatic character in the film. The debut performance of the eighteen-year-old Tate is simply infectious, but it gives the film a note of propagating violence and crime, which the Hughes brothers did not intend. There's also a young Jada Pinkett, as well as a small but very impressive appearance by Samuel L. Jackson as Caine's father.

All in all, good cinematography and acting, and brutal realism are spoiled by the lack of a well-constructed story and characters that would arouse sincere emotions, and the dramatic ending loses its power because it is obvious from the very beginning.

6,5/10

"No bad habits, ma. Except for a little killing."

Two years after proving himself in a supporting role in the Hughes brothers' debut "Menace II Society", Larenz Tate deservedly gets the lead role in their next film, the action war/crime drama "Dead Presidents". He justified the trust placed in him.

Tate plays Anthony, a young black man growing up in the Bronx in the 1960s. While his brother decided to go to school, Anthony joins the Marines and goes to Vietnam for four years. The war swallowed him, chewed him up, and spat him back out into the Bronx, unscathed but fundamentally changed. And the country he fought for gives him nothing in return. A black man in America in the 1960s, with trauma from the war and no formal education, with a wife and a small child, whose first years of life he missed, and without the possibility of decent employment, Anthony organizes a robbery that would provide him and a few other veterans with enough "dead presidents" for a comfortable life.

The film has several stages (youth in the Bronx and dealing with petty crime, the war in Vietnam, the difficult life of a war veteran, a major robbery and its consequences) each of which has the potential for a separate film, but although these stages change quickly, in only two hours of the film, they are by no means rushed and the Hughes brothers manage to do each of these parts of the story justice. In "Dead Presidents", they preserved all the qualities of their debut "Menace II Society", such as ruthless realism and explicit brutality, but also corrected all its shortcomings. The story is exciting and dramatic, the pace is fast and full of action, the characters are believable and impressive (and excellently acted), and the emotions they convey are strong. During the two hours of the movie, I didn't blink, and during the closing credits, which I usually cut short, I sat and reassessed my impressions.

I also want to mention that the film is full of homages to great classics ("Taxi Driver", "The Deer Hunter", "Apocalypse Now", "Platoon"), as well as great music (Stevie Wonder, Curtis Mayfield, Otis Redding, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Isaac Hayes, The Temptations, Sly Stone, Barry White, Al Green), which greatly contributed to the powerful atmosphere of the film.

8/10

Interesting theme, boring realization

After the success of the previous two films, the Hughes brothers had quite a bit of free rein to do whatever they wanted. They decided to take another step forward and go deeper into the taboo and shock the public, so they filmed a documentary about pimps.

The Hughes brothers opted for a completely impartial approach to the subject and were careful not to glorify or condemn the oldest trade and the men who found ways to use it. There is no script, but the film consists almost entirely of a series of interviews with real successful pimps around the US. It's well shot, edited to hold your attention as long as possible, and peppered with a couple of interviews with prostitutes, some archival footage related to the subject, and great music. But...

"American Pimp" is quite one-sided in many ways. First, it deals exclusively with black pimps from the area of street prostitution, which is only one branch of this profession. All the pimps depicted in the film are more or less of the same mold, and all the prostitutes are of the job-satisfied kind. There are no whites and Asians, there is no elite prostitution, drug addiction, and violence are only mentioned in passing as something that happens to someone else. The whole thing is shown only from the pimp's point of view, while we can see the real picture only if we interview more different profiles of prostitutes, the police, social workers, clients, victims of violence and addiction...

The topic is interesting, the film is original and arouses curiosity in the beginning, but very quickly you realize that you will not get answers to most of the questions and that the film keeps repeating the same thing for an hour and a half, and becomes boring and loses all meaning. Kudos to the idea, courage, and technical aspects of the film, but the final product fundamentally missed the point and would only be good as a single episode of the series that would cover other aspects of this story.

5/10

"People had more than they needed. We had no idea what was precious and what wasn't. We threw away things people kill each other for now."

In post-apocalyptic America, Denzel Washington is a lone traveler, a missionary who has been traveling west on foot for three decades, carrying the last copy of The Book, in search of a place where it will be in the right hands. On the way, he comes across a settlement where the reign of terror keeps people under the boot of a gang led by Gary Oldman, perfect for the role. He tries at all costs to get hold of The Book, in order to expand and strengthen his power. There are also Mila Kunis, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon (Dumbledore), and, in a small but impressive role, Tom Waits.

Many say that this movie reminds them of "Mad Max". I agree that there are similarities (if only because of the post-apocalyptic setting that imposes them), but for me, its essence and atmosphere are more like King's "The Dark Tower" (the book, of course, not that lousy movie).

In their last joint venture, the Hughes brothers turned to a genre different from everything they had done before and made an excellent and multi-layered post-apocalyptic SF, which will buy both fans of a good adventure and those who like exciting and well-directed action scenes, fans of post-apocalyptic stories, but also those who are looking for something deeper in the film. This film is not only a warning about nuclear danger, but it also deals with both sides of religion. It supports the sincere faith and the true message of Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) while criticizing its abuse, which unfortunately prevails in organized religion.

Excellent scenery, exciting details, good acting of the leading cast, peppered with several strong actors in striking supporting roles, amusing references to pop culture and some classics of the genre, and biblical quotations, all wrapped in a classic, yet original story, which holds the attention from the beginning to the end. And of course, the plot twist that will make you slap your forehead and wonder how the hell you didn't catch it right away, and it was right in front of your nose the whole time.

8,5/10

"Are you a mod or a rocker? - Um, no. I'm a mocker."

"A Hard Day's Night" by Richard Lester takes us through two days in the life of the Beatles, at a time when their popularity was starting to break all the boundaries. The story is based on the reality of these four guys, but it is caricatured into a comedy. The film is nicely shot and satisfyingly entertaining, but while I have no complaints, I don't see how it deserves cult status and positions on the all-time greatest movies lists. In my opinion, this is a relaxing and somewhat humorous story of average quality, good to break up a boring afternoon, but not to rewatch.

6/10

The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fifth with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France

"Henry V" is Laurence Olivier's epic attempt to bring Shakespeare's famous play to the big screen, in which he takes on the triple role of screenwriter, director, and lead actor. How successful he was in this is debatable.

As for the characterization of the king himself, Lawrence's performance is impeccable. The directing failed in some segments, but he made up for all the mistakes in several key moments.

The first of them is the very beginning, a panoramic view of a huge model of London, which was really imposing for that time. The film then takes us to the Globe Theater, in the year 1600. "Henry V" begins as a theatrical performance in the famous Shakespeare theater, where we witness scenes that introduce us to the story and, through several long monologues, accustom us to the English language of the time. But when the English start their campaign against France, the story skilfully slips out of the studio and into the open fields of Ireland, a location chosen for its neutrality in the then-current World War II.

The third and by far the most impressive of these moments is the depiction of the actual battle between the English and French armies. Colorful uniforms and banners, dozens of galloping horses and hundreds of soldiers in combat, rain of arrows, and the forest ambush are scenes that, even in the age of CGI technology, still take your breath away.

And, finally, Henry's courtship of the French princess Catherine and the marriage that ends the war. Catherine was to be played by Lawrence's wife at the time, Vivien Leigh, but was prevented by Selznick, with whom she was under contract. It's a shame, I think the ending would have been more effective with her.

However, the overall impression that the film left on me was rather weak.

The first and probably the only objective complaint I have against it is that the script is more superficial than the source material. Darker and more difficult scenes were removed from this adaptation, I suppose in order to make the film more palatable to a wider audience and cheer up the English soldiers, who have been burdened by the horrors of war for years.

But if Olivier wanted a film more accessible than Shakespeare's play, why the hell did he make it with Shakespeare's original text in archaic English, difficult to understand even for modern Englishmen, let alone non-English speaking audiences? This is my second and biggest complaint about the film.

Even though I've watched hundreds of English-language movies and never needed translation, this one was completely impossible to follow without subtitles. With literal English subtitles, I could get the meaning from the context and follow the movie, but I still didn't understand about a third of the text or more. It was so hard for me to follow that, until the big battle, I was on the verge of quitting, and only from the battle on did it buy me.

All in all, a mediocre story, as colorful as a parrot, overloaded with hard-to-understand and therefore boring monologues, which gained strength only in the last third and improved the overall impression to

7/10

"You're a vampire. Oh, I'm sorry. Is that an offensive term? Should I say 'Undead-American'?"

Inspired by the horror cliché, where an empty-headed blonde pulls a dumb move or sprains her ankle during an escape and is captured/killed by a villain/monster, Joss Whedon decides to turn the tables and, in the 1992 film "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," the superficial cheerleader becomes the Chosen One, a lone fighter against vampires and demons, whose destiny is to save the world. Five years later, the story continues in the series of the same name, which ran for seven seasons and gained cult status, with Entertainment Weekly ranking it as the tenth-best series of all time.

"In every generation, there is a Chosen One. She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons, and the forces of darkness. She is the Slayer."

The series combines a high school soap opera with elements of drama, comedy, and horror, and is more of an homage than a parody to the B-movie horrors of the eighties. Although it is technically horribly outdated, and the make-up and costumes are tragicomic, on the one hand, this is exactly what gives it an irresistible charm today, which easily wins over us nostalgics, and on the other, the characterization and development of the characters and their relationships, as well as the variety of topics it covers, greatly compensate for all technical shortcomings.

My opinion is that people who call this series trash either haven't gotten past the first few episodes and don't see the big picture, or they just don't like the genre. In both cases, they are not competent to judge. And then again, I think that others, who rank it at the very top of television achievements, exaggerate on the other side and that there are no real grounds for such a high rating.

I really like the style of the B-horrors, and I also like teen films. I'm very nostalgic when it comes to the eighties, I like the wide range of life topics that the series covers and the way it combines philosophical issues with pop culture, drama and horror with comedy and cheap action, sleazy tongue-in-cheek shame transfers with honest emotion. I like witty remarks and sarcasm about modern society (example in the title quote), as well as more or less obvious references to many personalities and achievements from the genres it covers.

The series was filmed in the same school as the cult "Beverly Hills, 90210". The Sunnydale Police logo is the same as in the "Police Academy" franchise. The ancient vampire, who is one of the main villains, is long-haired and bearded in the script, but in the series this was discarded and his appearance is now an homage to Nosferatu from 1922. Also, Spike's real name, William Pratt, is the real name of the legendary Boris Karloff.

My only major complaint with the series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is the choice of the leading actress. Although she is somewhat charismatic and certainly eye-candy, and although I certainly grew attached to the character of Buffy through 144 episodes, the fact is that Sarah Michelle Gellar is not a good actress. Her whole acting performance comes down to a few facial expressions that she spins in circles and a lot of the time she looks like she makes faces and is quite annoying.

But there are a lot of other actors whose performances are much more impressive (Juliet Landau, Eliza Dushku) and whose characters, over the course of seven seasons, have become like a second family to me (Alyson Hannigan, Anthony Head, James Marsters, Emma Ford, Charisma Carpenter) and I will miss them. At least until I return to this series for the third time, if there is time and opportunity.

8/10

"Well, what he can't do, it doesn't matter. It's the idea of Superman. Someone to believe in, someone to build a few hopes around. Whatever he can do, that's enough."

I thought I had seen all the Superman adaptations, then I recently stumbled upon the "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman" series. It ran from when I was fourteen until I came of age, a period when superheroes were much more interesting to me than they are now, and I hadn't even heard of it. If I had, I might have liked it more, but from today's perspective, this is just another in a series of mediocre TV shows from the nineties. And it really screams "nineties", it's obvious at first glance.

The creators opted for a slightly different approach to the topic, and the action and Superman's supernatural abilities are not in the foreground, but the story focuses more on his Clark Kent side, wrestling with everyday life and his relationship with Lois Lane. This, at least for me, is a positive thing, which sets the series apart from the sea of superhero action, and brings a breath of freshness to the genre.

But, typical of the nineties, the series is too clichéd and naive and, although very likable and somewhat attention-grabbing, falls into the realm of cheap entertainment. The biggest pluses are its different focus compared to previous Superman adaptations, Teri Hatcher, who is perhaps the best Lois Lane I've ever seen, and Lane Smith in the role of Perry White, chief editor of the "Daily Planet" newspaper. The downsides are naivety and reliance on clichés and lame special effects.

As for Dean Cain as Superman/Clark, I can't decide. I see a lot of people complaining that he's completely wrong for the role and, when I started watching the series, I was of the same opinion. But by the end of the first season, I got used to him, and he became likable and even quite fitting for the role.

All in all, if you're looking for a TV program to turn off your brain and relax after a busy day, highly recommended. But if you have any higher expectations, skip this series.

6/10