Stanislaus

Shame is a very realistic, at times almost salacious, probe into the life of a man who is obsessed with sex, unashamed of it, but circumstances demand that he re-evaluate his current (and really empty) life. The performances are breathtaking, with both Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan tackling their roles with bravado and verve. While the story isn't exactly perfect (at least for me), it is often chilling, mainly because of the level of authenticity. I must also commend Harry Escott's seemingly bland but all the more depressing score. All in all, a film that, while it didn't blow me away or put me on my ass (as many have), is still worth a watch.

Flight is one of those movies that stands on a good premise and a riveting performance by the lead actor. The most important step in getting rid of any addiction is admitting that you have a problem. Without that, you can never start! The pilot Whip, played by Denzel Washington, might have something to say about that, as he is ironically considered both a hero who saved a hundred lives and a bad guy who broke the law. The contrast of good and evil, lying and self-awareness are the main themes of the film. The addition of another troubled person, Kelly Reilly, only further enhanced the fact and emphasis that is placed on addiction in its various forms. The airplane scenes were very impressive, as were the final preparations for the hearing and the very end. The small role for John Goodman was also very satisfying. All in all, an above average film with a compelling story and good actors that is a psychological probe into the problems of today's population. R

Joe Wright won me over with his phenomenal film adaptations of Pride & Prejudice and Atonement, so I was counting on Anna Karenina to be another film that would fully immerse me and transport me with its atmosphere to the time in which the story takes place. Unfortunately, I have to say that this time it didn't happen. The original approach to the film's space, which is largely set in a theatre, seems very imaginative at first glance, no question about it. But the great novel (story) that "Anna Karenina" undoubtedly is is very much harmed by the confinement between four "bare" walls, not to mention the way the sets and props look (the use of a model train, I don't know why, irritated me quite a bit). As for the cast, at times I felt that some of the actors didn't take their roles too seriously (maybe a connection to the theatre, who knows), which was a bit annoying. In short, this film was quite a disappointment for me, which is all the more so considering the director's previous efforts.

A Scary Movie that doesn't star Anna Faris and Regina Hall - rubbish!? In the end, it deserves that one star, mostly thanks to Simon Rex and the "child mutilation" (which worked great in the third one). All that's left of the original touch are the parodies of various films, but they weren't funny at all. The casting of Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen was another nail in the coffin. This sequel should not have been made at all, as it is a disgrace to its predecessors.

I haven't had the pleasure of Park Chan-wook's highly acclaimed "revenge trilogy" until now, so the Stoker were a big unknown for me in terms of directorial style and poetics. I have to admit that visually it was a very well done job, involving the use of tracking shots, close-ups, no shortage of colour work and production design - just quality. The acting trio in the lead roles - Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman and Matthew Goode - performed convincingly, with grace, and at times I wondered who was actually the biggest nutcase on the set. Yet, as much as I'm praising the film here now, it still didn't leave me with anything profound to remember or return to. In short, a film that is steeped in flashy visuals and acting performances at the expense of story (or so it seemed to me).

I found Sasha similar to Summer Storm, also a German production about coming out. I was very impressed by the subject matter and the performances. While Summer Storm had a great soundtrack, Sasha has a funny side, which is provided by a line from the main character's family life. It's a really emotionally charged film at first glance, but as I said, everything is balanced out by the comedic interludes (otherwise it would have been a tragedy). Of the actors, I was most impressed with Sasa Kekez and of course Predrag Bjelac (he's probably all over the world).

I was quite looking forward to seeing I Love You Phillip Morris, but after watching it I have to say that I could have done without this film. I kind of don't know what my overall impression should be. I was very entertained in places, moved a few times, but in the end it all kind of evaporated like steam over a pot. Ewan McGregor was really great, I trusted his role 100%, but Jim Carrey often irritated me a lot with his efforts to play a convincing gay man (he was really annoying). The story wasn't bad in itself, but the plot kept kind of cycling, so by the end I was getting a bit bored. All in all (for me) a mediocre film that almost failed to impress me (except for Ewan) with anything enough to consider a higher rating.

The fairytale of the Brothers Grimm is quite different, in both the good and the bad sense of the word. Hansel and Gretel is a very brisk film with a likable cast, mixing wit, action and romance, and it's watchable in the end, but it doesn't dazzle, nor does it leave anything deeper (which is to be expected, but still). Örvarsson's music reminded me terribly of Sherlock (Zimmer as executive music producer) right at the beginning, which maybe bothered me a bit, but then it fizzled out. The plot wasn't bad, but I'm sure the overall theme could have been fleshed out more. That said, the primary purpose of the film was (probably) to serve up a crazy action-packed take on a fairy tale classic that was meant to entertain, which it did. In short, an average Hollywood film that stands out from the rest perhaps only in its approach and relationship to the source materia

I really like Alfred Hitchcock as a director, so I definitely couldn't miss a biopic about him, and with such big names in the lead roles. Even though it didn't get any significant ovations, reviews, or awards, I still enjoyed it. Perhaps I was blinded by the cult surrounding Hitchcock, or my favorite Helen Mirren, but I was impressed by the film. I enjoyed both the professional (the making of the film) and personal lines (the marital crisis, the "affair"), and the two intertwined in a purposeful way. I found the insertions concerning Hitchcock's ideas about the original killer who became the model for Norman Bates to be very original. I also increasingly came to like the acting of Scarlett Johansson, who was dazzling and likeable as Janet Leigh. In short, for me, a very well made film that stands especially on great performances and a compelling subject.

My second encounter with Star Trek (after the first film by Abrams) was again excellent. I went to the cinema for an experience, and I really enjoyed it, so I am exceedingly satisfied. Star Trek: Into Darkness is an incredibly fun audiovisual orgy with a perfect cast and script. Of the cast, I was of course most entertained by the "emotionless" Spock played by Zachary Quinto and the "fix-it-all" Scotty played by Simon Pegg. Benedict Cumberbatch was a hell of a villain as Khan, plus he has an incredible voice that added more juice to his character. There might be a few quibbles (Khan's slightly more expressive speech and a few illogical scenes that are actually allowed in sci-fi), but it doesn't affect the overall impression. In short, an amazing space sequel that is really worth going to the cinema for. P.S. (Spoiler!) And I was thinking twenty minutes before the end that there probably wouldn't be another sequel, but it wouldn't be Hollywood to turn everything upside down in the next few moments - which didn't bother me at all. I want a sequel!