Reviews

One day, some time ago, I thought about IMDb and realized that one could likely write most anything in this review space as long as it wasn't offensive - except to the intellect... I find it hard to believe that there is an actual human being, on IMDb's payroll, who checks the countless poorly written ramblings on offer here. (But in that case, hi to you, Tom or Kathy, hope your day is going well. I love this site. And let me ensure you, there is nothing inappropriate in this text. Aside from some inconsequential ramblings, if you'll forgive me.)

So, it's a Thursday night in 2021, and I'm at home, alone, bored, depressed and desperate. Thinking about life, which in my case seems to mean movies a lot of the time. But something has changed. I don't go to the movies anymore. It's weird, because for about 20 years I did. A 100 times a year. I love movies, with a passion. Still do, I guess. But, they have changed, or so I feel. They've become even more of an amusement park ride than they already were. And the change into digital image capturing has killed something within the art. Some level of expression and...craftsmanship, perhaps? Movies don't feel like films anymore. The flicker is gone, and I miss it. The cinemas have also changed and turned into living rooms and diners. Going to the movies these days makes me feel older than I am.

But I did see "Nomadland". It's a somber and sober drama with some actors who feel like real actors and not stars, and one can sense, that somebody was behind the camera actually thinking about the directorial choices. Watching "Nomadland" feels like you're in conversation with a mature person, who's taken a look at this world of ours and has something to tell us about it.

"Nomadland" is a story of, or a look at, a good woman who, like me, doesn't feel as old as the candles on a birthday cake say she is, but is already of no use to this world. Her existence is pointless - to everyone but herself. So, she turns to the nomad lifestyle, drifting from a temporary job to another. At Christmas time, she does seasonal work at a warehouse for Amazon, a real life E-Corp, which should be dismantled immediately. It's a horrifying world we live in.

The events in "Nomadland" actually take place 10 years ago, and the desperation has only grown since. In this context, Frances McDormand's character seems almost like a symbol of a free spirit caged in a soulless, man-made reality. Genuine human interaction is almost impossible, all you have is you...and your mobile home of sorts.

I don't know. "Nomadland" is a fine movie. But I'm not sure if it teaches us anything, in the end. Or, rather, it does, but the question is, what can we do with the wisdom that it offers to us? We can merely relate and accept. Or not. "Nomadland" gives us an opportunity to be away from home for a couple of hours, and then return. None the wiser, but perhaps bothered by the meaninglessness of it all.

On some random Thursday night, at least. In coming days and years there'll be other movies, and then other movies and so on and so on. And the silver screen looks more and more like the desert in "Nomadland".

"Kyrsyä" is a short (about 80 minutes), low-budget independent movie ("Findie") based on a play by Neea Viitamäki. A city girl going through a bad break-up is tricked into accepting a summer job at a small village - by the title - which has turned its back to the rest of the world. The village of Kyrsyä is seemingly a self-contained paradise living at peace with nature. However, it turns out that the village is a little too self-contained.

Viitamäki's story is a clever take on the anxiety dwelling among citizens too far removed from nature and, in juxtaposition, the consequences of not accepting to move with the times. In its pursuit of running away from the cacophony of the modern society, Kyrsyä has stuck to the ways of the 19th century, which causes all kinds of perversions. The film version deals with these themes, at times, inspiringly, but handles them in a noticeably uneven manner. This makes the viewing experience a trying but fascinating one. Especially weak is the clumsy ending, which is really unfortunate.

On the other hand, the village community, dialogue and depiction of nature are well presented. Acting is especially good, apart from a couple of exaggerations shooting for comedy - and, sadly, the leading actress, who can only offer a one-dimensional performance.

"Kyrsyä" aims for a blend of dark comedy and horror, but doesn't quite reach either. The pacing of the comedy is always a bit off and there is no sense of urgency regarding the horror. Even so, the movie does somehow weave its own sort of a spell through interesting topical ideas and some inspired acting.

Late to the party, I watched this Best Picture contender on dvd, which means that a lot of the visual WOWness went to waste. Knowing that I still say that the overall image quality was bland, impressive only when presenting some great visions such as Wakanda city.

Not being overwhelmed by the visual bombardment, it was easier to focus on what was actually said and what was actually happening. And I was disappointed. Interesting social commentary went largely undeveloped. Content-WISE, "Black Panther" is a kid's movie, and not particalularly refined at that. Dialogue was stock and characters largely cardboard.

I was very disappointed, to my surprise, of the cast. Chadwick Boseman, in particular. He is a tremendously gifted actor, but took T'Challa so seriously, that it became stilted. His slow reading of the lines alone made any resonance on the comical register impossible. Michael B. Jordan fared much better, but the character motivations for him were a bit confusing. Andy Serkis did a very good job with his ridiculous character. In the end, Martin Freeman was for the umpteenth time the best actor in a movie he appears in, without really getting his due share of the raves.

Coogler directs fluently, but, for example, the inauguration challenge fight was noticeably clunky. Also, this being a Marvel movie, most of what you see on the screen is actually CGI, or CGI enhanced (those rhinos really don't work). So you're watching an animation, basically. And it doesn't look that good. And, this being a Disney production, the lack of blood is incredible. There is a scene, where a person's throat is slit with a sword, and not a drop of blood is seen. If you can't show blood, don't shoot such scenes.

I honestly don't quite know what to say about "Black Panther", I was so much anticipating a better and more different movie. "BlacKKKlansman" is a far, far better movie about similar themes. "Black Panther" needed a more experienced filmmaker to pull it through.

There's nothing like it. "Roar" is, in my opinion, the most insane project in the history of cinema. There are many great challengers for the title, such as Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo" and "Aguirre", Hopper's "Last Movie", Coppola's "Apocalypse.Now," and, especially, Bondarchuk's "War and Peace", where the director-star pushed through two heart attacks while spending 7 years making the most expensive movie in history. But, I still say "Roar" takes the cake.

"Roar" is perhaps the most expensive home movie ever made. It was done by the Marshall family, led by Noel Marshall and Tippi Hedren. They cast their children, among them Melanie Griffith, who had spent much of their adolescence living with lions and other big cats, literally in the same household. The idea was that they'd be safe working with the animals.

Yeah, no.

"Roar" was in production for a decade, half of it spent getting the financing and pre-production. Most of the 90 minutes of the film are scenes of people and the big cats interacting. These scenes were done without tricks or special effects and the cast doing their own, incredibly impressive stunts. Basically, Nole Marshall and Friends were trying to pull of an impossible feat. And, to a degree, they succeeded, but at a high price. Melanie Griffith needed plastic surgery to save her face from disfigurement. Hedren broke her leg and suffered permanent scarring. The Marshall boys needed dozens of stitches from various accidental bites. Jan de Bont, "Speed" director, who served as the DP, had half of his scalp bitten off and stitched back.

Adding to this, upwards of 70 crew members were injured. And, then there was the flood which destroyed 3 million dollars worth of production when 90 % of the film had been shot. In the end, "Roar" ended up costing as much as the first Indiana Jones picture, despite the fact that most of "Roar" happens inside one house and the ranch surrounding it.

It's amazing that the production wasn't forced to stop under these conditions. "Roar" is unique.

And that is its chief virtue. It's not really a good movie. Certainly it's not well directed, and it looks way cheaper than what it cost. Acting is unfocused, the script is...slim. It's an amateur effort except for the very good cinematography. And yet, it is amazingly spellbinding. Somehow, it creates a fascinating flow. Much of the footage is unlike anything else anywhere. Some of the stunts performed by the Marshalls would make seasoned professionals hesitate. One example is Hedren's acrobatics with an elephant.

The movie's vibe is, well, special. At times, it seemingly aspires to be a horror film, but there's ni real sense suspense. It aspires even harder to be a family-oriented serio-comedy, but there are almost no real jokes. Much of the movie is like slapstick with no sense of pacing. I have to admit, that it's very entertaining, whatever it is.

In the end, "Roar" is a film with an agenda, to protect the big cats and wildlife. The film just serves its agenda in a very peculiar way.

"Roar" is a wonder of a kind. It will never be repeated, fortunately, but the participants seem to not regret making it. They just loved the animals that much. That love gives "Roar" its extra spice. Most movies can't offer that.

The title of this review is absolutely true.

The keywords are "embarrassing" and "cringeworthy". G2 turns out to be so bad, it's hard to believe adult people are responsible for it. The movie goes through every imaginable trope without an ounce of imagination, whether we're talking about plot, dialogue or pacing. The end result is really a Syfy production blown up to gargantuan proportions causing one to squirm in one's seat. A lethargic and miserable-looking Kyle Chandler plays the lead as a family man trying to save the world from the monsters with the help of an all too serious military personnel. And why shouldn't Chandler be dour? His lines are laughable and he must have spent weeks under artificial rain. The entire second half happens in rain and storm; thus, G2 is an unbelievably bad-looking movie, shot in ugly shades of miserable greys. The generically swelling music destroys the soundtrack. G2 is a massive spectacle, that needs to make a half a billion dollars to break even; so, how was this script, which seems to be written by 13-year-olds get an approval from the producers? All the ideas are worn-out. None of the handful of jokes are remotely funny ("hey, that monsters name sounds (nowhere near) like gonorrhea!") Think of the worst moments of Independence Day 2 (a very bad movie) and spread into two hours. There's action, sure - ad nauseum. It becomes numbing, not helped by how lousy the heavily filtered image looks. One more thing. As the movie progresses, Godzilla himself (a supporting player in his own movie) starts to get disturbingly human characteristics. Incredibly, Mr. G starts to resemble a really, really grumpy, weary old man. I thought G was an over-sized lizard. The anthropomorphising taking place is the ultimate wrong note in this cacophonic symphony of rot played entirely out of tune. It's no fun.

I didn't like "Deadpool", but I liked it better than "Shazam!" They both have the same problems: they try too hard and suffer from a lack of fresh jokes. But Zachary Levi (I miss "Chuck"..) is no Ryan Reynolds (or Tom Hanks). The greatest superhero of the production has to be Mark Strong's agent who still somehow manages to convince Hollywood that his client is worth hiring.

The good: depiction of the foster home and the child actors. Best of them, in my opinion, was the diminutive, adorable Faithe Herman (from TV's "This Is Us"). Some of the comedic scenes work nicely enough. And there is a great scene between a boy and his long lost mother, which seems more real than the rest of the picture. Other than that, the themes of family, standing your ground etc. take second seat to the action and comedy.

"Shazam!" is a calculatingly passable family distraction with unsurprising problems: in one scene a horrific mass murder takes place, but not a single drop of blood is anywhere to be seen. This is just lying to kids. And the end resolve takes way too long. Music is completely forgettable.

At least "Shazam!" maintains a light tone, by which it beats watching Zack Snyder films.

I was left with the general feeling, that "Captain Marvel" is a major disappointment.

First of all, there is a good story here somewhere, but it's just not well told, and there's too much of it crammed within about 115 minutes. The movie is fast-paced, but never really works, because the pacing is flat and timing is off. Aesthetically, "Captain Marvel" has been processed through the same "Marvel filter" as the rest of them. Dull. The filmmakers (indie directors of the great "Half Nelson") have given absolutely no attention to the music: the score is completely forgettable as are the 90's songs.

As for the themes, the MGTOW people are going to have a field day with "Captain Marvel's" less than subtle "feminist agenda". I'm putting that in quotations, because it's more accurately described as simply female agenda. Which is absolutely fine and commendable; the problem is the infantile in-your-face way the filmmakers address the theme. The movie is set in the year 1995, and it really feels made for that year's audience. "Captain Marvel" lacks a fresh perspective. And, by the way, any fans of "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer" will immediately recognise one pivotal scene lifted from a truly powerful scene in the series finale. In any case, Carol Danvers of the comics was always a decidedly feminist character, so this shouldn't cause any waves. What's lacking, is Carol's wide array of problems: her character history in the comics is one of the craziest in the Marvel universe (which is saying something.). Movie's much simpler.

The biggest disappointment, however, is the resourceful Brie Larson. She's just off. I don't know what happened, but the brilliant actress from "Room" is nowhere to be seen. She was just the wrong choice, I guess. Still, I'm surprised by her lackluster-ness. The cast isn't great, anyways, but at least Samuel L. Jackson and Ben Mendelsohn seem to be having fun.

Unlike me, for the most part.

And thereby unacceptable. Unbreakable and Split are so good that they deserved something better than this cramped up try-too-hard. Glass is still an endlessly intriguing, different kind of movie, but MNS can't quite make it all work. Had he followed the wisdom of "less is more", Glass might have been the great movie that hides within it.

Unbreakable was an inspired, beautiful, deeply felt take on the comic book phenomena. Split was a suspenseful, tight little thriller. Glass aspires to be a magnum opus, but often MNS forgets that he's not writing a novel, but directing a movie. So, Glass becomes too talky and expository. Same points are repeated too often. When it is an actual movie and not radio with faces, it's often very good. However, the third act feels like a let down by refusing to spread out. I get what MNS was trying to do and say, but as drama, it doesn't work.

Glass, rightly, focuses on the actors. McAvoy is, again, very good, although his ability to manouver between Kevin's different personalities has lost something of its freshness. (By comparison, Tatiana Maslany's work on Orphan Black feels deeper.) Paulson isn't quite convincing, but Willis is fine and charismatic. But, for me, the movie belongs to Mr. Jackson who's the only one really able to convey his character's past. And he does it beautifully with a lot of restrain.

Glass is an ambitious but uneven and less than surefooted work by an exceptionally talented filmmaker.

There are now 11 films in the Halloween franchise; this one is the first sequel directed by someone whose skills equal John Carpenter's. The result is the second best in the canon. The new "Halloween" is very, very well directed with a great cinematic vocabulary, so to speak. Green is extremely talented, and the movie comes close to being very good indeed.

The problem is the script. This is conjecture, but I suspect the weakest lines are mostly penned by the comedian Danny McBride: they sound too much like him. But there are problems with the structure as well, the movie takes its time to really get going. Although, the intro is dynamite.

It's worth noting that thematically, there is a subtle but poignant criticism towards masculine violence (represented by Michael Myers). This "Halloween" is very much a female story - like the original was. Having said that, I'm still not sure if Jamie going all Linda Hamilton was the right choice. She's great, regardless.

Finally, the stylish "Green Halloween" just doesn't feel scary enough. The ending lacks punch. And that is all.

Firstly, it's not as good. Also, it has real actors. I was expecting "The Happytime Murders" to either be abysmal or brilliant, but as it turns out, it falls somewhere in between.

It's perfectly competently made. And it's short: just over 80 minutes plus the end credits. The main puppet character, P.I. Phil Philips, is very good and carries the movie through its more unsuccessful parts. The first part of the story - provided that you enjoy raunchy humour - is surprisingly entertaining (and good looking). Another surprise is the amount of improv: the puppeteers are so good at what they do, that they can ad-lib, which is impressive.

Unfortunately, the story lacks punch and freshness. The last 15 minutes really drops the rating. That, and the fact, that the movie is never as funny as you'd want it to be. So, there you have it. I still enjoyed it more than I expected.

What about Melissa McCarthy? Well, personally I find her to be very talented. In "The Happytime Murders" she's ok, she has great technique and a great sense of timing, but she relies too much on familiar tricks, and only shines on a couple of occasions.

The real scene stealer therefore is Maya Rudolph, who is very sweet and brings the movie a lot of heart all while being very funny. Maya and Phil the Puppet actually have chemistry. The other puppets are fine, a mixed bag of jokes that land and others that don't. "Meet the Feebles" is way better in this respect, as well.

---

Some musings on the origins of "The Happytime Murders". The humour in the movie is very crude. It feels like Brian Henson and co. threw up all the R-rated behind the scenes jokes of Sesame Street of the last 50 years into this 80-minute comedy. The roots of this type of comedy can be traced into mid-70's. Mel Brooks ("Blazing Saddles", 1974) was among the pioneers, soon followed by Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker ("Kentucky Fried Movie", 1977) and especially by the National Lampoon magazine, who inspired a slew of movies like "Animal House" (1978) and "Vacation" (1983). (Not to forget Steve Martin's unbelievable "The Jerk" (1979), still the greatest comedy of the sub-genre.)

There was a "slump" for these type of comedies in the late 80's and early 90's - excluding Peter Jackson with "Meet the Feebles" (1989) and "Braindead" (1992). Then came the Farrellys and their "Dumb and Dumber" (1994), which really made crude, scatological comedy mainstream in the U.S. and globally.

"The Happytime Murders" belongs to the most recent wave of outrageous comedy, which has the distinction of being female-driven: Kristen Wiig's "Bridesmaids" (2011) is a milestone, and it featured two women appearing in "The Happytime Murders", Rudolph and McCarthy. Their co-star, Elizabeth Banks, made a similar bad-taste-comedy in 2008, "Zack And Miri Make a Porno". The movies may not always be very successful as such, but the skills of these actresses are undeniable and bring a freshness to the proceedings.

Apart from the mentioned, "The Happytime Murders" is explained, apparently, by Brian Henson's side project, "Puppet Up!", an R-rated live show he's had going on for the past few years.

Summa summarum, I think - to my surprise - I'd like to see a sequel to THM. A sequel that improves on this one and fulfills the potential of the concept. The makers have the means and the talent to pull it off.

Spike Lee has created an almost unimaginably uneven career in films, but it has never been in doubt, that he is one of the most talented American filmmakers of his generation. And should you have forgotten that, now you can remind yourself by watching the amazing "BlacKkKlansman", which won the Grand Prix at Cannes in May.

"BlacKkKlansman" tells the true story of a rookie African American police officer who in the 70's infiltrated in the KKK, but that's certainly not what the movie is about. Lee tackles head-on the contemporary hot topics of racism, the police killing black Americans, and white supremacy to create an overwhelming pamphlet about the American identity - which has been hurled into a state of great confusion after the last presidential election.

Movies don't come much more political as this one. In a way, "BlacKkKlansman" is a companion piece to "The Post" - a movie that similarly discussed the current political climate in a 70's setting - but with loads more of blackness, humour, anger and attitude. It's a better movie, too.

Though not perfect. Form-wise, "BlacKkKlansman" is sometimes paced oddly and feels needlessly long: not overlong, exactly, because you're not going to be bored for a minute. Visually it could have used a little more of the delicious textures typical of those 70's blacksploitations it makes references to.

But Lee is such a virile storyteller, that you can't help but get sucked in it all. And he has SO much to say. "BlacKkKlansman" is at its savage best when putting in perspective the official holier-than-thou image of the white Americans: Harry Belafonte cameos as an eye-witness of the beastly lynching of Jesse Washington in 1916.

Actors in "BlacKkKlansman" are great. John David Washington excels in the lead role. Adam Driver signs what is arguably his best role to date. Ryan Eggold is terrific as the local boss of the KKK, and the Finnish Jasper Pääkkönen impresses as his right hand man. The biggest surprise of all is Topher Grace, who is near-ingenious as David Duke, a well-mannered bag of sleaze in a three-piece.

"BlacKkKlansman" is an incredibly rich and stirring piece of contemporary cinema with enough stuff to fuel a conversation for hours. Or days. You can get a lot less with a price of a movie ticket these days.

PE2 is a first rate production, as professional and polished as they come. Logical, well structured and visually wonderful.

It's also not as good as its predecessor, and the gap between the two series is quite clear. This is because of certain narrative decisions in the Part II. Most noticeably, the thunderously illustrative music gets in the way. This was a small concern with the brilliant first series, but here the music is, well, just bad, to put it bluntly. The sound design is also distractive: the foley work is easily noticeable, and the sound is irritatingly dramatic during the many slow-motion sequences.

Another problem is the narration itself, which is written in a story-telling style, wherein the animals are anthropomorphized; binge watching the series, this strikes as infantilism. It doesn't help, that the "jokes" are often really poor.

There are a surprising number of sequences revisited from the first series. These could have, mostly, been omitted. Like the wolves chasing the baby caribou.

The camera work is quite a marvel - still, personally I prefer the more classical compositions of the first series. But to each his own.

All in all, PE2 is still great, but the bar has been somewhat lowered. Compared to PE1, it's lighter and more pompous in tone - and more eager to entertain for entertainment's sake.

Oh, man. I like intelligent movies, but I also believe in the concept of "suspension of disbelief". "Skyscraper" is definitely not smart, but it doesn't create suspension of disbelief, either.

It's okay to take certain licenses in order to create excitement, but this much dumbness is an insult to the audience's intellect. Look, you can't stand 20 feet above a 150 foot bonfire and not become a pot roast. You simply can't. And because "Skyscraper" is a survival adventure, this haphazard attitude towards the laws of physics makes the whole point of surviving moot.

"Skyscraper" is so childish and so clichéd and so unimaginative, that in the end it's not that much fun, although it is fast-paced (at least). It's seriously lacking in humour. The best moments are those with Dwayne Johnson alone in the heights battling against the towering inferno trying to kill him. But even those scenes are inexplicably interrupted by cringeworthy shots of an audience following his exploits via media screens. A really bad call.

Happily, though, "Skyscraper" is also racist. It's a Chinese-American co-production taking place in Hong Kong, and every single European character is evil. In fact, Neve Campbell - as The Wife - is the only good caucasian. All Chinese characters are good, except for one psychopatic, female killing machine, who is supposed to be "bad-ass" and "kinda cool".

Two things - in addition to those Dwayne Johnson scenes mentioned - save this from a one-star-rating: Neve Campbell and the cinematography by Robert Elswit.

"Skyscaper" won't burn into your brain. Ba dum tss.

"Cinema is a much too sophisticated medium to be left to storytellers", says Peter Greenaway in this first-rate portrait by his wife, Saskia. That statement couldn't summarise better neither Greenaway's films but also the documentary. Saskia Boddeke creates a compelling, irreverent, beautiful, funny, almost kubistic picture of the great British original.

Greenaway is much more than a filmmaker. First and foremost he is a painter. He's also as much a writer as a filmmaker. The documentary is based on running through the alphabet, letter by letter, and finding out what words Greenaway associates to the letters of the alphabet. It's also a study of the relationship between him and his 16-year-old daughter who take this trip together. One reason being Greenaway's plan to end his life own life when he turns 80. How serious he is about this is anyone's guess, but it would be a shame to lose such a creative person.

The Greenaway Alphabet is an intriguing, rewarding and revealing work, warmly recommended.

It's not a great film as such, but, then again, it doesn't really try to be. It's a simple movie about complicated people, told sincerely and with an air of ease. The result is a wonderfully enjoyable hour and a half at the cinema. We get to wander around a desolate place nobody really cares for and meet people one would very much like to share a cuppa coffee with.

At the center of this free-wheeling stands Lucky. He is played by the great Harry Dean Stanton. Now, what Harry gives us here is the most honest and deeply felt acting of 2017. Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis and Gary Oldman are brilliant virtuosos, but this right here is what connecting with an audience (an audience you as an actor don't even see) is all about. We are not watching a brilliant actor performing for us - we are there with Lucky/Harry. This is screen acting on a different level. "Lucky" serves as further proof that no matter how good you are, you don't get award recognition if nobody sees your work. Practically no one outside the festival circuit saw this film, even though it got great reviews and Harry was deservedly praised. Hence, no awards glory for Harry. Instead, he won our hearts. And I will forever hold Harry in my heart, The Actor's Actor, who couldn't have given a bad performance had he tried. And Lucky was his final masterpiece.

In the introduction, the director declares that his movie was "murdered" back in '77. On this rare occasion, I find myself on the side of the producing party. "On the Silver Globe" is as ambitious as it is insufferable. The majority of the first act is shown as a collection of recordings by a group of astronauts getting to know their new habitation. This is all done in hand-held close-up, and it takes over an hour. Most of what is shown to us is manic and deranged behaviour as the characters stumble into madness. (It has to be said, that these astronauts are a shame to their community. They should be men of science capable of analytical thinking, but instead they become mystics within five minutes from landing.) Very little of the dialogue is sensible in any way. That's a bit too much to ask of the audience. In my case, I could take about 80 minutes of it, then decided to try and spend my time better elsewhere. Zulawski is not without talent, by all means, but this project was misguided. I hope "On the Silver Globe" doesn't become a cult film - a classic it most definitively is not.

In "It would be good if one man died for the people", Hugo Niebeling films The Passion John's Gospel by J. S. Bach staging it all exclusively in a church. Within these limits, Niebeling creates a breathtaking movie full of masterful images and lively cinema. Bach's sublime music - heard in full - is accompanied by brief scenes of dialog represented as a play by a theater company. In the beginning the actor playing Jesus refuses to wear a wig and plays the character as himself, which feels absolutely right. He is extraordinary in the part, matching Niebeling's direction. A great masterpiece in need of rediscovery.

It's clearly overlong. The cute characters tend towards one-dimensional, some of the soundtrack choices are dull and the dialogue could have been sharper. In the end, however, all aspects mentioned are good enough and get the job done making it possible to let loose the mightiest cinematic imagination known to man: Steven Spielberg.

This 71 year old multi-billionaire is the bees knees. While the movie adaptation may disappoint some of the fans of Mr. Cline's book (understandably), those interested in pure cinema will find a genius working at the height of his powers creating an entire believable fantasy world on the canvas. Spielberg's unparallelled technique always guides the eye in the right place even in the film's most frenzied moments. Raoul Walsh once stated that there is only one correct place for the camera, and Spielberg understands this - even when he is orchestrating one of his jaw-dropping tracking shots.

RP1 is a ride. It's the most fun you can have at the movies right now. The whole movie is such a tidal wave of cinematic wonder that the actors will not get much attention. But it is a nice cast. Tye Sheridan is a talented actor and shines with sweet sincerity. Ben Mendelsohn makes for a decent villain. And Mark Rylance once again steals the picture with another relatable characterization.

And not in a good Ed Wood kind of way. It's basically an insult to all senses and particularly one's intelligence. It's supposed to be a comedy, a parody/satire of the genre, but the best jokes here are still worse than the worst jokes in the Scary Movie franchise. Therefore the concept that tries to make rape funny doesn't quite land. It doesn't help that the director doesn't know a thing about timing. Or - and I cannot stress this enough - about directing actors. The best of them are struggling with the amateurish dialogue, the rest merely exist. In the loosest sense of the word "exist".

I was incredibly embarrased and uncomfortable watching this garbage in the company of other people. This should only be seen in one of those private rooms of your local, as shady as possible X-rated shops, where you can really embrace the bottom feeder in you. "Bunny the Killer Thing" is not weird in any way. It's just bad. Peter Jackson's early films are weird. They also don't have much of a script. They are way gorier and ruder, too. But, unlike "Bunny", they are actually directed, and they have things like timing, jokes and fun. And actual actors. Jackson had enough good taste to make "Bad Taste". These guys just have a bad taste.

120 BPM takes us convincingly into the world of Parisien HIV activists in the early 1990's. The people feel authentic, so does their everyday life with the deadly disease and the way they talk about it. The many sessions of ACT UP PARIS are vibrant and makes an outsider understand the many sides of this particular battle.

But where was this movie 20 years ago when it was really needed? Or even ten years ago? And why is it half an hour longer than it needs to be? Even though the movie is intelligent and the cast is excellent, it really overstays its welcome. In a roundabout way, this is highlighted by the fact that this very talky movie is at its best when there is no dialogue. Images of raves and lights and dust are beautiful and more cinematic than the rest of it all.

120 BPM is an easy movie to recommend for its ideas, but as a piece of cinema, I don't understand its critiqueless reception. This movie about desire (for life, for sex, for justice, for attention) leaves a lot to be desired.

A small, confined and precisely executed movie about an emotionally scarred middle-aged man, who euthanizes pets - and judges their owners while doing it. It's sort of missing the point to call Armomurhaaja a thriller; at its core Armomurhaaja is a comedy, a very, very dark comedy about moral relativism and purism. Topics that are visited in movies way too rarely. Armomurhaaja is the bluntest examination on morality seen on the silver screen in ages. And a successful one at that. Actor Onnismaa's cantankerous, unrelenting, uncompromising, stubborn and anachronistic character demands to be taken seriously, because he will not sell out his values, and makes a convincing argument that his values - while not his methods - should be universal values.

The experienced Teemu Nikki is an original thinker, and knows how to make movies. Armomurhaaja looks about five times its budget (the IMDb estimated production cost is, if anything, an over-estimation) and is told in a sure-footed manner. It is also the best friend an animal, a pet, can have in the cinemaverse.

Let me tell you about the screening I attended. It was a special preview with about 20 attendants. We were all there to see the biggest sensation from that year's Cannes festival; we were there to see what was publicized as "the most original COMEDY of the year". For the first hour and a half there wasn't even a chuckle anywhere in the audience. During the last 45 minutes there emerged a handful of laughs, with me joining in once. Well, not bad, but not nearly enough for a 2½+ hour movie.

It has to be said, that this movie, which opens without any credits, has the ugliest opening shot in memory. It's a naturalistic, haphazardly framed and badly-lit shot of a mundane suburban house front door. The cinematography isn't great at any point of the movie. But this is a character piece, so that's not TOO important. Well, the characters are nice, but hardly memorable. "Toni Erdmann" is a story of an aloof father who's big on practical jokes and his uptight corporate daughter. The practical jokes have been called ingenious, but I beg to differ. "Harold and Maude", now, there is a movie with ingenious practical jokes. And originality, which "Toni Erdmann" only aspires to.

The director does manage to weave a believable world, which makes watching the movie pleasant enough, but it is telling, that the movie reaches levity only when nudity is presented. It's an old trick, but "Toni Erdmann" makes it work by putting its own spin on it. The last 30 minutes are markedly better and more substantial than the rest of the movie.

Other than that I do not understand the supposed charm of this quite pedestrian movie.