D.Moore

Two soldiers weave their way through a confusing labyrinth of trenches, poke their heads out, and set off somewhere into the lifeless countryside… And I'm not just following them; no, I'm there with them, that's exactly how I feel when I catch myself instinctively squirming in my seat, trying to see more than the film is currently showing me. Because I'm almost certain there's something or someone lurking over that horizon, and I'm scared. So even though I might find some flaw in 1917, the experience that Mendes, Deakins, and Newman have given me, that experience transcends anything else. The artistry of the film is breathtaking (Gallipolicomes to mind, rather than Saving Private Ryan), and much of that is due to the actors and their extremely authentic emotions and terrified faces. Yet another war film following in the footsteps of Dunkirk, with a classic plot and original portrayal, which I think will soon become a classic.

It’s as if Guy Ritchie was sorry about Aladdin and came up with a movie his fans wanted to see. He was obviously enjoying himself. While I’m not one of those who haven’t been satisfied with Ritchie’s work from recent years, I truly enjoyed The Gentleman;it’s an entertaining movie with a smart and funny screenplay (the whole movie is actually an anecdote whose sole punch line is a single, almost the final, scene), excellent actors including Matthew McConaughey in the role of a modern Vito Corleone, go-getting and sure-handed direction... what more could you ask for?

Overwrought, implausible, boring, and unintentionally funny to the point of parody at the end. Definitely the worst movie with Gregory Peck I've ever seen, and a pretty lame attempt at spectacle à la Alfred Hitchcock. So as not only to bash it, though, the opening was quite interesting and the shot of the falling man plus the cut to the squashed watermelon was really good.

Rough and tumble fun, right in the spirit of the comics, with Harley on a rampage, torn from the Joker's chain. A lot of comparisons will probably be made to Deadpool, and partly justified, but for me Birds of Prey is a cut above Deadpool, which was spoiled by too many adolescent jokes. Here, everything is in the right proportion, the film is very colorful, rich in everything from glitter to broken legs, and yet it holds together nicely and nothing sticks out. The queen, of course, is Margot Robbie, who gives her all to the role and enjoys it as much as I did. But besides the fine psychohumor, I have to highlight the direction and especially the perfect choreography of the action scenes, because the last time I saw something so hilarious was probably in John Wick 3. I predict that this film will be one of those that are much more loved by audiences than critics, and in one breath I would add: So Chad Stahelski was involved in the action scenes? That explains it all!

Sacha Baron Cohen goes a little farther (or, ahem, deeper) with each film, and this time it was a little too far (deep) for my tastes in places. But what can I say, I had more fun than with Bruno and a bit more than with The Dictator, and I think that once in a while a comedy like this doesn't hurt either. My admiration goes to Mark Strong, who went all in.

It’s a pack of lies. The protagonist ("hero"), played really well by Adam Sandler, lies from start to finish, makes excuses, cheats, makes false promises, pulls the wool over people's eyes, balks... I can't say he's particularly good at it, but he certainly does it so intensely and automatically that he's actually lying to himself, even though he doesn't know it. Watching him get tangled up in his own webs was no particular pleasure for me, and I couldn't even get attached to any other character, because they're all just lying in this movie. All of them. All the time. Still, it gradually won me over, and the riveting final half hour finally earned it that fifth star.

S. Craig Zahler has the audience, as well as his characters, absolutely in the palm of his hand from the beginning and does absolutely whatever he wants with them. While the characters have no choice but to struggle, we have no choice but to watch because it's that great. Grim atmosphere, unexpected situations, impeccable actors led by Mel Gibson in his best role since Signs... As far as violence goes, it's not quite as murderous as Brawl in Cell Block 99, but the tension and pervasive bleakness make up for it all. However Zahler does it, he's once again written and directed one of those films that people call unforgettable.

A very enjoyable comedy with a very good Steve Martin/John Candy duo. A few scenes are really great and hilariously funny (especially the march from the rental shop through the airport and what follows, and then the nighttime car ride), but some I found a little weak and a little, really just a little rife with awkwardness. However, the ending moved me, even though I had been preparing for it!

If the main character and the main villain weren't such bland and uninteresting misfits, this could have been a reasonably enjoyable musical, because unlike Tim Burton's Dumbo, which I turned off after fifteen minutes, I didn't have such a problem with Aladdin. It's good to see that everything about the cast isn't digital, but that the filmmakers went to some trouble with sets and set design in general; Will Smith is very good as the genie (even in his much-criticized blue form), and the story was quite interestingly developed. And a great job by Alan Menken, who made his own excellent music for the animated Aladdin even better. However, if it weren't for the credits, I wouldn't have thought for a second that Guy Ritchie directed this.

This movie is unique and I'll be happy to write more about it when I can think of the right words.