Kaka

A heavyweight Bond flick. Long, plot-heavy, appropriately robust, with a great performance by Craig. One can't help but feel a certain similarity to the previous Spectre, especially in terms of pacing and formal opulence, but Mendes's directorial prowess and flair for scene-setting is replaced by the industrious Fukunaga, who doesn't shy away from overlong running time, another 00-seven on set, or the spectacular layering of motifs in an ingeniously pieced-together narrative mosaic. This time it's not an action Bond, but a flesh-and-blood hero full of emotion and anguish.

Very artsy, visually captivating, charming, and aesthetically precise, but it is not a timeless film, and James Bond as a character and main hero is timeless. Most of his films do not age, Skyfall, however, will likely age, as it is a more precise reflection of our time than the other movies, with the heroes, the characters, the dialogues, and the polished visuals want now. In 10 years, the trend will possibly be completely different. Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale were about revenge, or rather about love, motifs that will still move the film world in 100 years, and They are missing in Skyfall. Now it is trendy, we will see what it will be like in a few years.

Skyfall was already a precise reflection of our times and an homage to the current intelligent high-budget blockbuster. It didn't have the pull, emotion and inner strength of Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace, but it's clear why; there was something going on there. But the Vesper references are very much evident in this fourth mashing of the plot, which was fully capitalized on in Daniel Craig's very first Bond, and it became a complex and full-bodied film that took the story of Agent 007 a level further in the film industry. It became a mass appeal, not a fan thing, thanks to its means of expression. Logically, there are not many ways they can go without taking it in a completely different direction, which Spectre fails to do, and it even wasn't intended to, unfortunately. Fans will try to "find it there" for the entire 150 minutes, but they won't. The few iconic scenes that warm the heart or dazzle with their sophistication are just carbon copies of previous episodes (most of the train scenes, the base in the desert). It's clear that filming the same thing twice in a row the result will not be the same. After a second viewing, the rating has to go up. Essential and visually incredibly lavish and sophisticated filmmaking. Emotionally, it's not the ride that Casino Royale was, and Léa Seydoux is no Eva Green, but Spectre assaults the other senses and does so excellently as well.

For my taste, too much time is spent on the early era, when Formula One was in its infancy, but everything was at the beginning and the appeal and trends were gradually developing. On the other hand, there’s not much of the golden era, or the modern era. Lauda vs Hunt is OK, there is very little Senna, and Prost is basically not there at all, yet the duel between these two drivers is perhaps even more epic and longer than the one between the knights of the 1970s. It's solidly done, though, with lots of valuable facts and interviews

Several plot lines running independently of each other that intersect at fateful moments seemingly by chance. How many times have we seen that? It started with 21 Grams and it continues through all the other imitations and big city romance films. Here, instead of the USA, it's London; instead of alternative dreamers and philosophers, there's Idris Elba and Gemma Arterton playing typical high society, and although these two would seem to dominate, in the end their story is the least fleshed out, and that's a shame, because they are more or less among the acting first class, or at least the broader top. It doesn't have bad moments, it has emotions and a few touching or at least suspenseful scenes, but unfortunately it is poor and uninteresting script-wise.

Danny Boyle is a good director and this adrenaline bite is far more impactful than it might seem at first glance. He turns a a banal storyline into a psychedelic affair of the highest caliber. The desire to survive is beautifully displayed in full force. From minimal resources, he achieved the maximum outcome; this film is definitely worth seeing. It is a simple, yet highly watchable affair.

In some shots, it is outrageously tedious, but overall it is too pared-down. 12 years go by and the viewer doesn't even realize it in the structure of the story – or rather, it is not rendered credibly enough. Hans Zimmer still uses meticulously crafted major chords, alternating with minor chords like in in Inception, only this time we have delicate strings or piano instead of robust synthesizers. There are a few incredibly powerful scenes and in terms of explicit violence, it is quite uncompromising. Michael Fassbender is devilish and there are some soulful monologues and dialogues as well, but I missed a more complex output or idea. As a story about one man, it may be passable, but as a complex Oscar-winning epic, it fails. Unfortunately, Steve McQueen sometimes doesn't know what he wants to make of it.

This time, Vinnetou and Old Shatterhand fight together against evil tribes far away in Afghanistan, supported by spectacular, visually elaborate Bruckheimer-like effects. At times a parody, at times a poorly made war film. If it's really based on a true story, then it deserves a much more raw, believable treatment.

First and foremost, a thorough script guarantees a quality spectacle. And I dare to say that on the first watch, this film is difficult to understand, and penetrating all the nuances and intricacies of the script can only be achieved on a second or third viewing. It can be said that throughout the the film, we do not know where we stand. There are plenty of deceptive references and supporting characters. All of this is wrapped in Terry Gilliam’s typical visual style and unmistakable signature. I dare not claim that I fully understood this masterpiece, but I can confidently say that there are very few films of this kind, with such a large dose of originality and directorial invention. And when you add excellent performances by Bruce Willis and Madeleine Stowe, the result is nothing short of a masterpiece.

Michael Bay is searching and doesn't know which way to go. He may be aging and maturing in certain creative aspects, but at the same time he is dramatically losing his directorial touch and there is almost nothing left of what entertained his millions of fans and die-hard worshippers in the 90s and 00s. Nowadays they're more or less experiments meant to evoke some sort of shift in the viewer's perception, but I want the old Armageddon and 14 cuts per second back, not a half digital copy of Black Hawk Down where the dying and marine feeling is similarly raw but formally lost before our eyes. The viewer is eventually hit by explosions and bullets, but not entirely in a positive way. It's not as it should be.