Reviews

A bad movie by all standards. If that wasn't enough, we're continually exposed to all sorts of modern-day propaganda. I don't have to name it - you know what it is.

There are so many references to the original that I was brought to childhood when I had first seen it.

The best cinematic experience of my life and a perfect gift to all Top Gun fans.

Every now and then, but still rarely, I stumble upon a movie which, while looking simple on the surface, has a lot say once you dig more deep into it. What is so profound to be found in the movie in which we witness a prison break? Nay, one in which we know the outcome from the very beginning? Director's decision to reveal us the final outcome in the very title of the movie suggests to me that this isn't really about the prison break. It seems to me that the prison setting is used to communicate something profound. What is that?

We witness a prisoner meticulously planning and carrying out his plan which will eventually get him to freedom. The prison is well guarded. Our prisoner was beaten and is waiting for the sentence, possibly death sentence. He doesn't know what lies ahead. Whom he can trust or which route to take? Is it even possible to escape? There are so many 'what if' questions that it's a waste of energy to enumerate them.

But our escapee wants to be free. He had made a decision: he's not going to wait for the enemy to decide upon his destiny. That intangible, deeply rooted want, is the fuel which keeps him running. You can see it in his eyes. That yearning is strong enough to beat all psychological barriers which stand in front of him.

Am I be able to do that? Not necessarily escape from prison, but be willing to withstand so many difficulties to come to a certain point I find important? The character and spirit Bresson laid in front of us is universal. He has shown us what might be required of us to become what we want to be. For that I'm grateful. And that answers the question.

You don't get to see this type of movie very often in theaters nowadays. And seeing almost 2,000 reviews two days after the movie had landed seems to support that opinion. What's the hype really about?

Here you have a tough movie detailing the life of a mentally unstable person living in a collapsing society. Does that seem like a movie which can create buzz? That looks, at least to me, like a movie made for narrower audience. But once you combine this setting with the Joker persona, you have something extraordinary with capacity to start debate and controversy. And we can ask ourselves why is that? Is it only because this movie hit cinemas at the right time detailing delicate themes of modern era? Or is there something peculiar in combining Joker and prevailing illness and loneliness?

Many people have already rightly pointed out similarities between Joker and Scorsese's Taxi Driver. In both cases we are following stories of mentally sick man surrounded by awful conditions. Manner in which the topic is dealt with is similar as well: very graphic and open. But here similarities stop. These are two very different movies having totally different objectives.

First, Taxi Driver elaborates on a guy having some sort of superiority complex and problematic, if not even sick, approach to women (madonna-wh**e complex from Freudian psychology). Joker gives us insight into a person who has been bullied, underestimated and made use off his entire life. Plus, everybody knows who Joker really is. He's crazy, enigmatic, smart and influential.

This knowledge takes us additionally into entirely different direction since in Taxi Driver we couldn't really tell with high confidence what's going to happen with Travis. That's the brilliance of Taxi Driver. It tricks you and makes you guess since Travis seems to think and act pretty sound but still showing signs of deteriorating mind. Brilliance of Joker is that the guy who is to become Joker, *undoubtedly* mentally unstable and violent, doesn't trick us like Travis but makes us sympathize showing his side of the story.

Joker is thus more than a story about an underdog. I'd say, contrary to popular opinion, that Joker is more a social commentary than a character study. For a movie to be a character study we'd have to see more description of characters inner dynamics (Travis writing his diaries in Taxi Driver). Besides, Joker is who he is because he is socially very relevant. He's got followers and has become an idea. What we're really witnessing is *not* underdog becoming a winner but society collapsing and loosing its way. Joker is a winner only because society became a loser.

So there's really nothing to admire about Joker. I personally look at him as a sign of what might happen to a society of individuals in which:

"Everybody yells and screams to each other. Nobody is civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it's like to be the other guy. "

And that is why I see this movie as a great social commentary, especially during times in which entire world has been struck by tragedies, horrors and mutual distrust.

Here I explain what is behind TD's success as a psychological movie.

Even forty years after the initial release, Taxi Drivers is still a relevant movie from which we can learn important things. TD deals with far too serious subject to be easily forgotten or neglected. Conspicuously detailing effects of loneliness, Scorsese takes us right into a milieu and mind of a person who is suffering from chronic isolation left to his deteriorating mind.

So we're following a story of ex soldier, now a taxi driver working nights in New York. As he drives we see dirty streets revealed by too bright street lights with strange looking people on the sidewalks. Our driver, Travis, doesn't value this people highly; in fact, he is disgusted by everything on this streets. Every now and then we can hear him sharing his thoughts, as a narrator, a background voice, on different matters. This gives us valuable insight into his mode of thinking, current feelings and mental state. So here we have a double insight: one into Travis' mind, world of subjective; second into his everyday life, world of objective. This portrayal is done in a Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground style since this work influenced development of Travis character.

Here I shall emphasize what makes this movie special. This double insight, into subjective and objective, is presented very clearly. But it is the opposite with conclusions we can draw from this insights: we can not draw clear conclusions. Travis is not flagrantly troubled. Some of his comments and actions look pretty normal and sound. For example, he is pretty slick in approaching a girl. But on the other hand, especially towards the end, we are made sure his mental state is not a normal one. And there we have it: here we can experience from the first hand what it looks like to be manipulated by someone. Furthermore, we're even put in a position to feel bad for Travis! It's easy to think of him as a hero, as final scene reveals, and as a victim of society dissolved in debauchery.

Here we can see that Taxi Driver can be seen as a movie with a very specific ability: it can trick you into thinking that you're doing psychoanalysis only on Travis when in fact you're doing psychoanalysis on yourself as well! That's because you change your opinion about Travis constantly as he gets mad and thus natural question comes up: why is that? And here you're confronted with your own motives and standards.

So the careful watching of the movie can really serve as a kind of mirror in which you can see some Travis' traits in yourself. Pair this with prevailing theme of loneliness and isolation and you get a movie which can have a powerful impact on the audience.

Here the details of the movie and plot aren't that important because there's nothing solid to hold onto. You have to see this movie and focus on Travis, seeing how his behavior reflects his inner dynamics and hearing him read his diary. Further topics which are explored include the so called Madonna-w***e complex and superiority complex, as well as misfortunes of living in a big city. So to conclude, let me mention that photography and music strongly contribute to TD's ambient. Taken all together, TD really is a great, one of a kind movie.

The aim of this short text is to give you some insights before you see the movie so you know to which elements you have to pay special attention. ----------- It's rather difficult to write something specific and sensible about this movie. We see a group of young people coming to Sweden to witness some local community festivities. After being initially struck by paradise looking nature and hospitality of the locals, they begin to witness some of their weird and scary customs. And then we go...

Almost entire movie happens during the day. There are no jump-scares. Nobody is coming after somebody. So I wouldn't describe this movie as a horror but rather as a psychological terror movie. And here's the reason why: Midsommar is successful in creating an atmosphere of distrust between the protagonists which makes us feel like not knowing who's going to do what and how. That's the exact reason why Midsommar makes us feel distressed.

On the one side we have a pagan cult with whom we get acquainted as the movie rolls. On the other side we have a group of young people obviously shattered by life tragedies and mutual problems. Former represents a united community, later just a make-believe community. This is important to stress out since the director said in an interview that this is essentially a break-up movie (breaking up with someone is an act of bringing to an end community of two). That means that we shouldn't focus too much on the cult itself but on the protagonist's desires and reasons why. Why did each one in particular decide to go to Sweden? What were they looking for? How did this peculiar Swedish surrounding manage to bring forth their true faces? This movies isn't about providing us with psychological description of cult behavior but psychological description of our behavior, double-standards and hypocrisy.

You may feel about the cult one way or the other but its purpose is in essence an instrumental one. And no matter how ugly they become, we can't doubt that they really believe in what they do. So it's important not to become to occupied with their rituals during watching of the movie. I'll conclude with some questions and tips which you can keep on your mind while watching the movie:

• pay the closest attention to Dani
• keep in mind her family tragedy and think about how that affects her presence (movie will notice you to keep that in mind with few flashbacks)
• think about Dani's relationship with Christian; this is very important as you'll clearly see in the final scenes
• ask yourself if this pagan cult is group's enemy
• try to answer what were their motives for going to Sweden in the first place
• how this peculiar setting brought about their conformity and behavior?

I hope these question help you during watching of the movie and thinking about it!

Back to the Moon has amazing footage, amazing music and great editing. There is no narration but composition of videos and pictures with Apollo conversations and then TV anchorman's commentaries. Taken all together, it really made me feel a part of the 1969 and helped me to see how big step for mankind happened on 20 January of the same year.

After being disappointed with the second movie I still had quite high expectations from this one because JW series certainly has potential. Unfortunately, this movie suffers from several conspicuous things.

Firstly, acting is unbelievably two-dimensional. Absolutely no one, not even Halle Berry, delivered any other emotion other than desire to kill and even that one was delivered poorly. About 90% of time actors look like angry ten-year old's after their toy had been taken from them.

Secondly, action becomes boring after seeing the first half of the movie. This is a major one since action sequences is all JW has to offer.

Thirdly, story is nonexistent. This may not seem as a big problem since JW series don't pretend having one. But give as at least something! This story vacuum influences the way action sequences are ordered. That is why they become boring after the first hour or so: nothing happens in between and so they occur in a similar fashion.

Fourthly, movie never creates any tension. Remember the bank robbery scene from Heat? Until the action starts you're already at the edge of your seat! There's not anything like that in this movie. And again, action, which is pretty much everything JW has to offer, becomes monotone.

Fifthly, there's a lot of occult symbolism in the movie and the violence sometimes becomes awful. The entire movie looks, at least for me, like it was made by a group of satanists.

In conclusion, this movie suffers from a grave lack of moderateness in every area. Avoid it unless being a JW fan.

Cold Pursuit is a retribution thriller with exaggerated humor especially in the second part of the movie. We follow the story form three perspectives: from a perspective of Nels Coxman, father whose kid had been killed, criminals' who had killed the kid and Native American gang who become involved in Coxmans' and killers dispute.

Coxman in depicted as very vengeful, brutal and determined father. Criminal group is depicted as pretty stupid with their leader, Speedo, being overly malign and irreverent. Speedo plays very important role and his attitude is so overly spiteful that is sometimes just looks goofy in contrary to him trying to hold dangerous physical appearance. Native American group makes room for humor by engaging into battle with the former group. The chief purpose of having dark humor intertwined with violence is to make fun of gang life and show that there is nothing glamorous whatsoever in living such a life. For example, every time someone gets killed we see an obituary reminding us that we won't be seeing that character anymore. Story takes places during a heavy winter near Denver so you have a characteristic milieu for story to unfold and enough material for peculiar "war tactics".

All in all, Cold Pursuit is a decent and unusual vengeance movie with dark humor which comes as a nice surprise in contrast to violence. See it if you like Neeson type of movies.

The sheer fact that we have an opportunity to watch almost 90 year old Hollywood legend directing the movie and acting in it makes me think how to approach it. First question I have on my mind is this: why would a 90 year old man put time and energy into a movie instead of spending as much of remaining time as possible with his family and friends? That's a legitimate question and seeing this movie with correct understanding answers it. Clint made The Mule because of not despite of his close ones. The Mule is a sort of a will in a movie format.

All drug business is an allegory for what Clint has gone through over the years. Maybe he felt that he neglected his family and people important to him because of career? You don't become Clint Eastwood without a huge amount of time and effort spend on set. Maybe he wanted to say how sorry he was for it?Maybe Clint wanted say that in the end he feels as being the mule in the movie industry working for money because he's good at it and not personal fulfillment? Maybe he wanted to say that he understands mistakes he made and is willing to accept them and deal with them? Or maybe he wanted to reaffirm how he stayed true to himself over the years?

I think part of the answer for why he made this movie lies in everything above. The Mule is not an ordinary movie despite looking so from distance. It deserves your attention without you knowing much about it.

This movie is not about cars and driving. It's about something in man's nature which makes him susceptible to downfall to darkness and violence. That downfall can lead to problems with ones identity and so we're symbolically never told what is the name of our main protagonist since names can carry meanings. He is simply 'driver' who wears a famous scorpion jacket which is a substitute for a name the meaning of which we have yet to discover and verify.

So we follow a driver that looks and behaves as a pretty normal guy who, inter alia, works as a getaway driver for criminals. He doesn't carry a gun or participate in heists but rather only drives criminals to a safe zone. We see him working in the introductory scene and later very rarely. What we see for the rest of the movie is how this 'slight' involvement in criminal activities affects him and people around him.

Tone of the movie is neo-noir, a mixture of Lynchian dialogues and Fincher's darkish colors. Both of these are important. Since driver doesn't speak much you have to read his face and manoeuvres to try to understand what he thinks and how he feels. Besides, remember that he sometimes wears a jacket with a famous large scorpion sign on his back which has an important meaning and role. Concerning the overall dark and sometimes very violent milieu, I came to see that it's not gratuitous. It's role is to horrify you for the sake of better understanding of driver's character and decisions he makes. Violence first occurrence splits the movie into two parts which in turn adds to sharper contrast between amiable driver we got to know and his dark side. And that leads to greater shock value depending on the image of driver you had created throughout the first half. That shock can be pretty effective and lead you to reevalute your assessment especially if you had put driver's involvement with bad guys in second plan and put his tenderness first. Ultimately. I'd say Drive is a character oriented psychological neo-noir slow burn criminal drama with romance as underpin.

Furthermore, there are other two things worth mentioning: soundtrack and camera angles. First really stands out and even plays a role because sometimes words used in a song depict directors intentions. Second is harder to notice at first but I urge you to take a look at YouTube analysis for better insights which will certainly make you appreciate Drive more and maybe make you watch it more than once. The point is that camera angles used in different situations reinforce a particular aspect of driver's character, e.g. low shots making him look superior and dominating.

When we take everything together, Drive turns out to be a pretty solid and serious movie about driving forces behind some man's actions. If you're looking for a slow and more or less sophisticated multi-genre journey into darkness and violence, you've come to the right place.

I stumbled upon this movie accidentally while watching TV and decided to give it a shot since there was nothing better on. I would have probably never decided to watch it deliberately because of the unsavory topic. And that would be a mistake.

Two things really stand out in this movie: Dan Stevens' acting and soundtrack. Stevenson plays this super calm and, as you can guess from the beginning, highly trained soldier who one day just shows up at the doorstep of some family who had lost their son in combat. He tells the mother how he knew her son, gets acquainted with the family and stays with them. Here you can see how good has Stevens pulled out this role (David): he was successful at being mysterious and somehow at the same time pretty familiar in a sense of having something familiarly odd about him. Throughout the first half you are never completely sure about who David is, what his plans are, is he a good or a bad guy and yet you know something will go wrong. You can smell that he's probably dangerous and that he takes advantage od family's sorrow. This creates tension which keeps the movie going and leads to paroxysm in which you finally meet real David and see what he's capable of and, very importantly, why he is capable of those things.

Soundtrack is slick and helps to give a finishing touch. Annies' 'Anthonio' Berlin breakdown version playing in some scenes is hard for me to get out of head. This movie proves that great soundtrack can make up for superficial plot and make movie much more enjoyable and smooth. Plus, songs playing match David's character and make him look more as deus ex machina and a helping nice guy he purportedly is.

Given the perspective a viewer has, which is, unlike main protagonists, that of having all information about what's happening, The Guest is very entertaining to watch coupled with great soundtrack. Don't expect something special or deep and you're surely have fun watching it. Even the critics gave this movie high rating which rarely happens with this genre. Hope I got you at least a little interested in seeing it!

I've seen this movie a couple of days ago and it delivered exactly what I wanted to see: a relaxing and fun mystery movie in which some young people do detective business in their neighborhood. Relaxing relates to the first part of the movie while fun describes the whole experience.

In the first half of the movie you get acquainted with main characters and the neighborhood they live in. I really enjoyed it since it set relaxing summer tone. Then there comes the second part where mysterious things start to happen. And that's what's so cool about this movie; it's always fun to see unexpected horrific events taking place in the regular setting, entering into and dwelling in ordinary, not being main occupation and starting point. Horror is thus subsumed in the tone set by the first part and gets its flavor from it.

Furthermore, there's a linear progress in terror - it starts benign, builds slowly by adding more elements which raise suspicion and then suddenly bursts. This terror is not characterized by macabre tone or gruesome imagery but rather builds tension and makes things more mysterious until the very end.

All in all, this is a very fun movie to watch in the evening by yourself or with friends!

P.S. As I was writing this review, for some reason I just couldn't get another movie out of my head: The Goonies (1985) directed by Steven Spielberg. Then I found out that Spielberg was executive producer of this movie. There are no words that can describe feeling Disturbia creates better then this connection.

It really makes me sad and disappointed to see this movie having better metascore rating than Alien 3. Fans blasted previous movie with all sorts of arguments but seem to speak more positively about this one which is, in my opinion, several levels below it.

First three Alien movie have very strong atmospheric elements; they really draw into the story. This one never succeeds in doing that. Character development and slowly building scenes are traded and sacrificed for action and gore. Besides, whole thing feels very sinister and occult. It's no secret that Alien movies have something to do with eugenics (in a particular sense of creating a perfect race) which is clearly visible in this movie and Alien Covenant. While I have no problem with that topic in Alien context, I think they went a little too far with it and with sexuality in Resurrection.

Concerning character development, it's done poorly compared to previous Alien movies. First three films were somehow able to develop characters without using too much words instead concentrating on movements, face expressions and similar. Resurrection protagonist, whom I almost don't even remember, say stupid and unnecessary things. Everything feels non-authentic.

In conclusion, this is by far the worst Alien movie but still enjoyable as an ordinary action/horror film.

I don't think I ever diverged that much in opinion about a movie with IMDb reviewers or critics. This movie delivered much more than I had expected. It's no surprise that Alien 3 was received better internationally than in USA since this movie has something artistic in it, something not appreciated by American crowd. Furthermore, this movie is a perfect example of how "fans" can help to bring a movie down: they're just not capable of appreciating something new and always think It's best to just hark back.

Alien 3 can be best be described as a combination of the original Alien and milieu from Twelve Monkeys starring Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis. There are no guns here, no massive shootings, no futuristic technology, no spaceship. It's dark in here, claustrophobic, dirty.

What really amazed me is how successful Fincher was in using humor to assuage such a dark world. There are really funny moments very cleverly put so that they make this dark world feel like inhabited and made by humans. Most of the people in here are prisoners who work physically demanding jobs, far away from civilization as we know it. Moreover, humor helps us to keep in mind that there prisoners are still human even when exposed to such harsh circumstances and after doing horrible crimes.

Critics are right to point out how editing and cutting makes you feel confused, not knowing what's happening. Well they're right. I think that doesn't have to be necessarily a bad thing. Since there are no weapons here, all protagonists were vividly confused and very scared. These cuts put you in their position. Alien 3 really stands out from other movies from Alien series.

I will conclude with recommending this movie to all of you who love dark and dystopian atmosphere even if you're not into Alien series because this is a great and bold movie.

• - - - -

EDIT: I've seen Assembly cut version so everything written above refers to it. It was interesting to watch making of this movie and see what happened behind closed doors and with what problems Fincher had to deal. Maybe overcoming those helped him to become a great director.

Ne treba od ovoga filma raditi kontroverzu jer on to nije. Oni koji to rade nanose stetu redatelju. Prije je potrebno naglasiti interesantno prebacivanje radnje izmedu sna i jave te izmedu onoga sto se dogodilo i onoga sto se ima dogoditi. Kvaliteta ovog filma lezi u nelinearnoj radnji koja potpuni smisao dobiva tek na kraju filma.

Cini mi se da je Bresan odlucio riskirati s otprilike prvom polovicom kako bi mogao zavrsti sa snaznom porukom jer prvi dio ostavlja dojam da bas i ne zna u kojem smjeru treba ici. Cijenim takav rizik pogotovo kada redatelj uspije, kao sto je Bresan s ovim filmom uspio, pokazati da su sve proturjecnosti samo prividne i da su sve suvisne scene bile itekako potrebne kako bi se prica zaokruzila.

Svakako, radi se primarno o drami s elementima vrlo neobicnog i pametno osmisljenog humora. Ne bih rekao da je posebno jedna skupina napadnuta ili ismijana. Citav se film s vremenom pokazuje tragikomicnim jer *sve* strane ukljucene u radnju pridonose stvaranju nereda na koji Bresan zeli skrenuti pozornost sto cini pametnom satirom kojom se najbolje moze ukazati na bolesnu drustvenu zbilju. Kada se to shvati vise nece biti potrebno isticati da je neki film kontroverzan i na taj nacin sve kvalitete staviti u drugi plan.

Tko god je otvorena uma i uz to vidi da je nase drustvo bolesno nece u ovome filmu vidjeti provociranje radi provokacije. Bez suvisnih detalja, preporucam da odete u kino i pogledate film. Ako ne stignete sada, vjerujem da ce biti aktualan i za par godina. Moze posluziti i kao dobar lakmus papir.

I've gotta admit to you: I was expecting a lot from this movie since so many people had been saying it was really good. I'll say: it was really boring.

Most of the movie you see Jack drinking and taking drugs and Alice going to the top and being around Jack. His drinking problem is a very important side of the movie, no doubt, but it shouldn't have become central and, sadly, only side of the movie. 'A Star is Dying' would have been a far more realistic name for this story.

Music is fun and cool until around half of the movie; then it becomes boring since you see whole songs being played. So you listen to them and wait for the story to continue in the same fashion as before: Jack drinking and Ally singing. So don't expect anything you've seen in e.g. La La Land.

In conclusion, A Star is Born had a potential to be really touching musical drama with music much better intertwined with the film. Unfortunately, to much drinking ruined it.

Bad Times at the El Royale is one of those movies which start relatively benevolent but then continue to develop a dark story. First you see a couple of very different people getting acquainted with each other at the motel which has a very symbolic meaning since it is located at the exact border of two USA states, one half being in California and the other one in Nevada. I urge you to keep that fact in mind throughout the movie. After the initial setting of the story takes place, narrative starts to turn to past explaining the background of each character separately. That shift from present to past is done abruptly, taking you to the past and then returning to the present situation. That insight about past gives you a whole another perspective on the current situation and relationships which protagonists developed. You can in a sense start to feel sorry for what is happening. At several points you even get a historical perspective on motel; what kind of motel El Royale is exactly. I emphasize this present to past and back turn since it's fundamental to the plot which is evident at the very end.

Religion is not central to the movie, but is not peripheral neither; it has a somewhat important role which becomes more obvious in the final scenes. One character being a priest turns out to be important especially in the light of sect and its capricious leader who has "spite inside his dna" after they show up. Other thing I want to mention is music; it's very conspicuous and gives a peculiar note to tumultuous atmosphere. Soundtrack is going to be a big plus for you if you reckon it important. Taking everything together, Bad Times at the El Royale is at the same time entertaining and introspective in a way Pulp Fiction is. I recommend this movie, particularly to those of you who like to think about symbolism in the movies since there's a lot of material here!

I think that it's important to say this right at the beginning: The Equalizer 2 is more drama and crime than action. There are several brutal action sequences which occupy relatively little running time. Here you can see Denzel playing very ambiguous character: one who is very amiable with regular, good people and brutally violent with bad ones. There you have it: drama and action.

Does that make mr. McCall (Denzel) psychopathic since that brutality doesn't seem to interfere with his regular life? Yes it does. Does it really matter? No it doesn't. What does matter is that this movie is much better than the original and that is something critics wont acknowledge.

If you've seen the first part you'll notice that now writers managed to better balance out mayhem with ordinary. This is important since it's central to the movie and greatly affects the flow. Moreover, if good soundtrack and sound production is important to you, there's more than enough to enjoy here. Overall, surprisingly well made movie.

The Equalizer 2 can rightly join the company of other two good action/thriller this summer movies, Sicario 2 and MI - Fallout.

Everybody knows Tom is a special type of a special agent (special special agent) who can in his mid 50's win at least a dozen athletic competitions at Olympic games, most notably running mid and long distances. Without breaking a sweat, wearing his trousers. When it comes to road races, he knows how to handle pretty much every land vehicle in a most diverse situations; Schumacher and Rossi are lucky he never competed against them. Besides, we all know Tom could fly military fighting jets from an early age earning his place at top school. Who could've thought he'd be equally good at flying choppers! (There are several brief and subtle Top Gun references in this MI which are going to be appreciated by TG fans.)

All of that and I haven't even come to his fighting, climbing and shooting skills! Tom can shot pretty every weapon included in all of Call of Duty series on a marksman level, harshly eliminating all threats. I won't spend much words on his climbing skills but will just say this: he can climb a flat wall while having a fever and several bones broken. Toe to toe fights finish before they even start - bloody details are unnecessary.

When it comes to morals, Tom never thinks in utilitaristic terms; he probably doesn't even know what that means! Thank you Tom for showing me how fallen creature I am by making the most noble and cherished decisions never recorded before in even the most sacred of scriptures. On the other hand, his superb intelligence allows him to always be on the right place at the right time! I can't even in my wildest dreams imagine Tom being late or exacerbating already precarious situation.

That being said, it is evident Tom is not an ordinary agent. He's on a completely another level! He is "super-agent" with most of the emphasis on "super". Super-duper agent. Next Mission Impossible should be titled: MI - Top Tom.

Let me conclude with a real life example. Once my friend told me how he was concerned about the world ending. I told him: Do you realize Tom Cruise is still alive and is probably going to live longer than both of us even though we are half his age? That terrible idea hasn't crossed his mind again to this very day!

********

Putting jokes aside, if you're in for some non-stop action with rather complex narrative, there's no way you won't be entertained. Check it out!

I haven't seen more original movie in a long time! it seems to me that no one can beat French cinematography when it comes to that. Most of their movies I have seen are quaint but very entertaining and this one is not an exception.

This is a parody set in the early 19th century with Jean Dujardin (Oscar winner) playing ignominious war deserter who finds himself very comfortable when surrounded with casual acquaintances who believe he is actually a war hero. And the reason why they believe that is rather peculiar and has to be kept a secret at all cost.

This is most I can tell you without ruining your experience. If you're in for a good laugh, entertaining narrative and pretty solid acting check it out with some friends.

When a young family goes on a vacation they encounter what it seems to be an avalanche approaching them while eating. That terrifying moment left them alive but still had a major impact. That occasion brought to the surface everything that was left unsaid between the husband and wife.

Originality of this movie lies in the clever combination of the setting and realistic portrait of emotions. Throughout the movie we see beautiful shots of Alps and their grandeur compared to human. Still, compared side by side, it looks like "force majeure" of nature is nothing compared to "force grand" of human emotions. Here we see that it is easier to control nature than oneself.

This movie has some scenes which do break the flow, but it's important to recognize their true meaning. For example, there are several scenes where the couple brushes their teeth. Boring, isn't it? The point is that you can live with someone and do even the most private things together and still be separated. Force majeure or Tourist may have been named "Abyss between us".

If you're tired of superficial storytelling without any meaning whatsoever with real life, you might want to check this one out.

Most of the top IMDb Hereditary reviews are sheer extravagance - reading them might leave you feeling disappointed at the end of the movie ------------

What kind of movie is Hereditary? It's a movie where almost everything that happens serves as material for the final culmination. There are no particularly scary scenes until the very end; they tend to put you in a state of discomfort rather than scaring you in a classical sense. As the movie approaches final culmination you can already feel tired of being disturbed by frenzy you've seen so far.

Who's going to 'enjoy' this movie? Probably everyone who's 'enjoyed' The Witch (A24 production as well) and Sinister (starring Ethan Hawke; stay away from the second part) both of which I recommend. Hereditary can even be described as a combination of the two: it has soundtrack and violence similar to Sinister and psychological terror peculiar to The Witch. As a result, Hereditary delivers both psychological terror and occult terror which don't stand separated but are interlaced. This fact is very important in creating such a sorrowful atmosphere.

To be frank, there are some boring instances here and there, but I don't think they are without meaning. Critics gave this movie high rating for a reason and I think the reason is different aspects and sources of the terror being cleverly put together by those very scenes which do break the dynamic but give you reasons to think about the movie afterwards.

Combination of which elements and to what proportions lead to all the tragedy and sorrow this family struggled against? The way Hereditary puts forward this question is what ultimately makes it a good movie. If you're not fainthearted and find the above stated question interesting, you might want to check it out.

Most of the movie we see a guy, driving a regular car, who is being chased by another guy in a large truck. Conversations are seldom, characters few, as well as locations; everything happens in the lifeless Deserts of California. But you don't need any of that to create a gripping movie which Spielberg was successful to do using different camera angles which emphasized speed of the chase and secretly approach - a regular guy is getting chased 'out-of-the-blue' by anonymous, eager fella and nobody knows why.

This secretly approach immediately signals that Duel is not a regular 'cat vs. mouse" movie as most of the people tend to see it. Rather, it seems to me that Spielberg tried to describe thoughts and behavior of a deeply insecure man when encountering a life threatening peril. A small car getting chased by a truck can thus be interpreted as a materialised dynamic of an interior process. With this approach all the details become meaningful: truck being dilapidated but still powerful, driver of the truck completely anonymous, action happening in the deserts with long roads and nowhere to hide, monologues peculiar to insecure people, ending itself etc.

Either way, even for nowadays audiences, Duel is tense and fun. But underneath the chase there is more than meets the eye with enough space for individual and completely free interpretation which I applaud and appreciate.

Most of the SF movies I've seen so far don't put enough emphasis on what an everyday life would look like in the near or far future. Blade Runner 2049 is different. Besides developing a story suitable for academic debates, Villeneuve really draws you in the futuristic world with punctilious detail. Depending on how much you're able to notice and appreciate those details will determine how much you get to enjoy the movie. And depending on how much you're able to scrutinize philosophical elements in the narrative will determine how much you appreciate it in the long run. So, if you want to get a full experience of BR 2049 you first have to carefully watch it and afterwards give your self some time and think about the story and problems it raises. That explains why there are so many cursory reviews with bad rating here on IMDb. Let's face it: this movies simply isn't made for the masses.

BR 2049 is slow-paced, dark, visually absolutely stunning SF drama set in Brave New World type of setting. Story is of course connected with the original so despite others claiming otherwise, it's important that you first see the original. And that's all you have to know about it. Let me only mention that a lot of debates concerning neuroscience and what is called neurophilosophy are in front of us. That being said, this movie is only going to be more and more relevant plus we can expect more movies like this one. If you're interested in those topics, equip yourself with patience and be sure to give this movie a shot.