lamps

I am becoming quite concerned that we now label "visionary" those directors who masturbate to their poseur art style instead of providing constructive storytelling. It annoyed me with Ari Aster, and it ruined Eggers's second effort – I enjoyed The Witch because it built up a really oppressive atmosphere and didn't subvert the clarity of the message, but The Lighthouse was a psychedelic patchwork with no heads or tails. And The Northman, that "Monster of a Film" and God knows how else foreign critics have praised it, drags like a welfare queue. I was really prepared for the trivial tale of revenge to be just the necessary Shakespearean framework both for stylistic virtuosity and for Eggers to translate the familiar plot into the uncompromising brutal world of the Vikings. B is ultimately quite right, and if there's one thing I really liked about The Northman, it's that it presents a dense mythological world that we don't see much of on screen. Unfortunately, the expected camera finesse and visionary staging didn't quite come through and apart from the raid on the settlement in the opening part, I didn't find anything particularly formally interesting about. It wants to be realistic and gritty at times, hyperrealistic at others, and then it's a fantasy about Norse mythology. And while at least the music works brilliantly and each shots looks good on its own, the tediousness takes a toll, and it's awfully obvious how Eggers avoids having to deal with the logic of the twists and turns or the protagonist's actions underneath the mystical haze of every dialogue and the MacGuffin-based "written in destiny" thing. The actors are great even when screaming, and the final duel at the volcano is a nice reminder of Obi-Wan vs Anakin, but otherwise I expected more from everything – even the brutality, which must have been absolutely insane at the time. True, the film oozes madness, but having the characters scream a lot and imitate wolves during mushroom rituals does not provide a thoughtful and "visionary" experience.

There hasn't been a horror film since It Follows that so creatively and intelligently pays homage to a single genre phase and, moreover, serves as a faithful commentary not only on the film culture of the time, but on the era itself. The return to 1979 on the hot Texas plains is not just a retro comeback of hixploitation (the clash of urban cool kids with Southern rednecks), of which there are many – and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre alone has eight futile sequels – X revives an entire libertine decade when censors increasingly had to grant the inaccessible X rating, with an emphasis on the most natural and at the same time the most taboo topic: sex. First of all, this is not a straightforward physical confrontation like in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, to which Ti West deliberately refers in some of the stylistic choices (hunter-victim shooting), the opening gas station stop, the Texas setting, etc., this one builds on ingenious parallelisms between the two camps of characters, who have essentially the same needs and whose sexual options are separated only (and significantly) by their age. People don't change mentally, but the inexorable passage of time always shows itself. Whether physically on individuals or on the nature of society, which dictates what is in – and in the seventies, "tits and ass, and a big dick" were all the rage, to borrow an idea from the magical Jenny Ortega. And so it's only natural that this film’s final girl has to be a shameful slut to survive, facing another, very wrinkled shameful slut. It's brilliantly shot, perhaps just a little too posed and lengthy in places, the retro look is good and the level of brutality is not such that the violence draws attention to itself and distracts from the compelling and often quite true-to-life ideas: "one day we're gonna be too old to fuck", or a retired couple will come with pitchforks to deal with their mental issues the way, well, only rednecks can. 85% and the fifth star goes for the fact that this just turned out to be the film for me.

I skipped the first episode as a precaution and went straight to the second one, expecting brisk and raw action, and suffocating post-apocalyptic atmosphere. Well, I guess I overestimated it. The beginning was very promising, with a quick explanation of the events that led to the collapse of civilization, and then it was full speed ahead. But right after the first chase there was a big lull that lasted unnaturally long. For a while it was interrupted by the ugly bad guys, but then things calm down again, the initially working atmosphere completely fizzles out and I was really getting bored. Moreover, Mel Gibson, as great an actor as I think he is, only uses two expressions in the whole film, and by the latter I mean his final smirk. The final car chase was spectacular and entertaining, but it ended somehow suddenly, without much of a climax. And that's what the whole film is: it does its job, but I can’t say it adds something more than the bare average, nah! But I can't deny that it’s a source of a lot of inspiration to this day. 65%

I've seen a lot of stupid horror movies, but this was really extreme. The story is an amalgamation of all the clichés we have seen a million times in similar murder mysteries, and not only lacks any logic, but mainly emotion, suspense or at least a tiny glimmer of originality. All the twists and turns are ridiculous and lifted from other famous horror films, the expected explicit scenes come in the last few minutes and are worthless, and the behaviour of the characters is a entire chapter in itself. I'm sure you’ve seen a bad guy standing over his defenceless victim pointing a loaded gun in their face, and instead of firing, he starts talking tough and the situation mysteriously gets out of hand – that's exactly what director Gens packs into every action scene. I was going to give it at least that 1*, but then I realized I didn't have a single reason why. The film didn't bring anything new. Some screenwriter just scribbled a few lines on paper after a bender and then they made Frontier(s) based on that. This time I was very happy to give a Boo! 5%

A pretty intense and scary ghost film that only uses the best of the tried and tested genre elements the viewer is always guaranteed to enjoy. The script is weaker (come up with an original horror film nowadays), but James Wan has really played with the form and his imaginative direction doesn't let you breathe practically throughout. The actors are also very good, the atmosphere is chilling and disturbing, and the music is strong enough to underscore the scares and amplify their effect. And if I said I didn't get chills down my spine during the final scene, I'd be lying like a politician... :) It has steamrolled Paranormal Activity. 80%

Come and See is fascinating and unique in many ways. Firstly, in terms of historical plausibility and significance – it’s not hard to imagine that this is exactly what happened in those six hundred Belarusian villages in 1943. The Germans marched merrily through the area and, in between humiliating and sexually abusing the local population, chased the villagers into barns and set them on fire. The local youth lived in misery and out of general indignation they allowed themselves to be recruited by the partisans, because they wanted to fight heroically for their people. The corpses piled up, innocent people were doused with gasoline and set on fire simply because 'their race has no right to a future', and the poor survivors carried with them a lifetime of trauma etched into every wrinkle on their faces. Come and See depicts all this not only believably, but also intensely and thoughtfully. The protagonist, the young partisan Flyora, goes through an increasingly violent and horrific ordeal, and for most of the time the camera sticks like a tick to his sensory, visual and even auditory perspective. He begins as a well-mannered, conscientious and optimistic young man, but the events drastically transform his emotions, psyche and appearance. Almost all visual and acoustic features are subjectivised, putting us directly into the protagonist's head, a place nobody would want to be in, especially in the second half. And that is one hell of a devastating spectacle full of filth and mental and physical pain, with a soundtrack that follows dizziness and simulates the greatest human agony... and well, you can take poison for that. And at the same time it’s absolutely unlike any Hollywood war film, which are more fond of artificial dramatization and strong heroism. There are also some poetic elements or editing techniques closer to the European modernism of the 1960s, which sometimes evoke the aura of an art festival. At the same time, it's notable that director Elem Klimov opts for mostly dynamic camera rides and follows moving characters, bringing the style back to Hollywood, even contemporary Hollywood – I could personally imagine, that if Spielberg had this script today (or back in the 1980s), he would stage many of the more action-packed passages very similarly, using long takes and multiple smaller storylines in one take that would gradually interweave and build on each other. Moreover, it is a film that absolutely denies the popular Soviet cult of personality, cultivated under Stalin, which made national heroes out of ordinary protagonists of films or literary works. No one is a hero here, everyone is a victim of an incomprehensible murderous and ideological machine that either makes you mad or sucks all the life out of you, an innocent child. Personally, I consider Come and See to be such an exceptionally shot, effective and precisely consolidated film in every single way that I would rank Klimov among the best directors of the 1980s for this alone. This despite the indiscriminate treatment of the child actors, who obviously went through hell – especially Alexei Kravchenko, Flyora, must have endured the unimaginable and I'm surprised he didn't quit acting afterwards.

We all know that Morrison was about as far from being a saint as Tiger Woods is from celibacy, but this honest depiction of his mental decline completely wrung me out. Ironically, this is not primarily due to Stone's direction and dramaturgy, but to the completely authentic look of all the interiors and sets, and above all the physical appearances of the actors, who play their roles with unprecedented verve. That Kilmer, the Kilmer singing perhaps as well as Morrison, sweating on stage and having sex in agony with perhaps the entire female population, was not even nominated for an Oscar is a greater disgrace in cinematic terms than all of Woods' infidelities combined. It's his heroic portrayal of the famous musician that is the main thing that, together with the gorgeous music, accurate period atmosphere, and ultimately impressive direction by a master of the biographical and tragic, makes The Doors a film worthy of the musical greatness of the namesake and sinful band. 95%

Although it’s rather misleading that historical films of this kind receive high ratings automatically and partly because they exist, this morally worthy and emotionally charged gem basks in praise, and rightly so. It’s very painful to see all the heinous acts that people are capable of doing to others, and it’s even more painful with the virtuoso Roland Joffé, the famous creator of the no less appealing, artistically intoxicating The Mission, behind the camera. He was able to materialize the atmosphere of occupied Cambodia, the conflict of the power of love and friendship with pure human suffering and the unadulterated joy at the moment when John Lennon launched his "Imagine" so perfectly that I could almost say "yes, I was there". So, yes, this film deserves all the high ratings, simply because it exists. 95%

I love those concepts where a film first makes a huge joke out of genre tropes, then becomes one and gets carried away on the silliness of all the clichés, dialogue and characters. The Lost City goes all-in in this regard, and although the over-the-top self-aware 'I know I'm over-the-top' humour gets annoying after a while, it manages to keep its face. Whether it's because of the boundless adventurous naivety, where everything is a reference to something else in the service of a deliberately unrealistic plot twist, or because of all those A-list actors having so much fun. Bullock is naturally great like in the old days, Tatum enjoys the anti-heroic narcissist more than he did in 21 Jump Street, Radcliffe entertains every second and Pitt reigns supreme in a role that would kick Cliff Booth's ass (though he'd probably lose more than ten percent in the process – inside joke). It’s not something I’d want to see a second time, but I'd love a spin-off with Jack Trainer. 65 %

I don’t think it could be any better. Zahler has not only written a very good screenplay that manages, alongside the expected cannibalistic premise, to fully introduce the characters and pay tribute to the Wild West as such, but he also shoots like an experienced and patient veteran. The opening scene is excellent in its minimalist execution and dense atmosphere, while the first two acts are a methodical, nerve-wracking build-up with great actors, and everything running like clockwork until the premature climax in the form of the first physical contact with the savages. Until they were seen, the bad guys were paradoxically much more frightening, and I enjoyed the acoustic hints of their presence or the first-person camera in the case of the perpetually injured Patrick Wilson, thanks to which I almost felt his pain myself and enjoyed how the director was slowly preparing me for the final push. It didn't happen and the rescue mission was handled too shallowly and in a rush, but the story still kept its dignified face and proudly applied for a nomination for the most interesting horror film of the last few years – and I’m not gonna lie, I might even vote for it... 80%