D.Moore

The film as such is not outstanding, but it certainly has something to offer. I was a bit bothered by the first three-quarters of an hour (apart from the beginning with Henry Fonda and the introduction of the English), when the jungle wandering is done in the style of "we go - we stop - the Japanese jump out from somewhere - we shoot the Japanese - we collect the dead - we go - we stop...". The actors managed make up for everything. Cliff Robertson may be too much of a big shot, but Michael Caine is a true rebel, and Denholm Elliot delivers the creation of a bumbling officer who just follows orders. I give it three and a half stars - when I see the film in its original version, I'll go higher.

The same kind of sit-com stupidity as in another “legendary show” Married with Children. Not even those few really dry wisecracks by the butler could save it from a Boo! rating.

Leslie Nielsen's last film, which can be described as good. Never again has this white-haired demon come so close to the classic The Naked Gun. Wrongfully Accused is worth seeing because of the dozens of references to various films. It’s too bad that there were a few awkward jokes, but otherwise, I have no reservations.

So: A chilling atmosphere, constant tension, ever-present fear... None of that is in the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre. One star was earned by the music, the other by the bright exceptions (about two scenes that really had something to them). An unnecessary remake. What struck me, however, is that the film is set in 1973, but you can't really tell. Odd.

Today, it’s considered a classic slasher film, which, among other things, shows that even a proper maniac should be in good shape. What I certainly didn't expect was the swift and uncompromising elimination of all the protagonists. For the opening scene with the skeletons and the ending with the dinner and everything after (especially the dance with the saw), the film deserves five stars. But it's still missing "something". And there is quite a lot of "something".__P.S. Now I can watch the remake in peace, so I'm in the loop.

Where to begin? Thunderball has: Once again, a great Connery who is as funny as he is tough and charming, a great spy story, sensational action scenes (the opening brawl and the final diver battle), John Barry's excellent score as always (plus a song sung by Tom Jones and some of the most successful opening credits), beautiful girls, a great villain... What does Thunderball not have? Anything wrong with it! Five pure stars, no complaints.

I really didn't expect anything from this movie... Nor that I'm giving it three (well, it's more like three and a half) stars. If it didn't have such a slow start, I'd go even higher. It is practically only when three quarters of an hour of the film has passed that "something real" starts to happen. But then it doesn't stop happening until the end. The brother villains (one looks like Ozzy, the other like a supporting character from La Piovra) are good, helped most by Ottman's excellent music and sometimes routine, sometimes original, direction. All the "characters" are eliminated without unnecessary fuss, which is definitely a pleasure, and lovers of nice "meaty" shots will also enjoy it.... I liked the "dissolving" finale very much (the cameraman gets top marks), as well as the nicely freaked out Elisha Cuthbert, but I liked the final wink at the viewer less, along with Paris Hilton (who, of course, did what she was supposed to do, I'll give her that). But I'm satisfied.

Kung Fu Panda is beautifully made. Not pretty or nice, but really beautiful. And I don't just mean the animation. I was struck especially by the great color stylization of each scene and their design in general. Together with Zimmer's music, all of this made for an almost magical experience, if it weren't for... The story. It's just plain ordinary. Po is likely to become a hero, although no one around him, not even himself, expects it. So I was hoping for a lot of jokes, but Panda is not exactly full of them. Fortunately, though, there are likable characters (I liked the master dubbed by Dustin Hoffman much better than the main character) and briskly and humorously filmed fight scenes (the battle "for the dumpling" leads the way). Three and a half stars. And I just decided to round them up. Just because.

For me, Blood and Wine is clearly a four-star affair. I didn't find the film boring, banal or clichéd at all. At the beginning it seemed that I would be annoyed by the storyline with Jennifer Lopez and Nicholson's stepson, but in the end it turned out that it also had its justification. It's hard to fault the actors. Nicholson is exactly what you'd expect, and Caine's grunting, maniacal banger isn't the least bit flawed either. Put these two together in front of the camera, give them some biting dialogue in the script, and it all becomes clear. Yet I wonder what it would be like if their characters were played by someone else?

Oh, my God. Action/Thriller/Comedy - that's supposedly the genre of this film. There is action, the film has nothing to do with a thriller, and I laughed maybe once. I already consider the first film to be an unprecedented abomination, but this addition is almost impossible. It's basically a carbon copy of the first one, only there's more “fuck," more silicone boobs, more sex, and Statham's (the Terminator's half-brother) heart is pumping electricity instead of adrenaline. Like the telephone ending in the first film, the ending here feels "fiery" - I like it, it's funny and it has some flair, but the 90 minutes that precede it are wasted time.