nicholasbert

As it often happens with this kind of low budget artsy movie these days, the look is so polished that after a while it starts feeling fabricated. Odd choice to try and reproduce the language of the 17th century - but obviously it turns out it's neither historically accurate nor does it immerse the viewer in the particular time setting, and it times it sounds distractingly silly. Thumbs up for the parsimonious use of blood and gore.

During a few moments you get the feeling of the tension actually building up, which then resolves in the same vaguely plain sense of fascination you had before. I would have much rather preferred they focused on the journalism part of it rather than the paedophilia part of it. A particularly brilliant Mark Ruffalo.

Spielberg delivers a so-so biopic focusing on one particular moment in Lincoln's life. One doesn't quite understand the purpose of choosing this particular moment if then you don't follow on the social and political implications. Everybody already knew the history - it would have been interesting to focus on some other aspects. Daniel Day-Lewis impeccable as usual, this time the fault lies with the screenwriters and the director.

If Match Point hadn't existed, maybe Irrational Man would be considered differently; however, Match Point does exist, and Irrational Man is essentially a translation of it from British country clubs to American college campuses. The moral dilemma (including the importance of chance) is autoreferential and a hallmark of Woody Allen's take on life. It maybe would be fair to assume Irrational Man to be the solidification point of the director's career, a sort of "this is what I do" stated in capital letters. This being said, Irrational Man isn't despicable: what it lacks is a few adjustments to make Abe's dilemma and resolution clearer and perhaps more humour. It is essentially driven by Joaquin Phoenix's and Emma Stone's performances, without a doubt the proof they are good, if not great, actors. The dialogue is cultivated and relentless as you'd expect from Woody Allen - it's just not as funny or cynical. One would do Irrational Man a dishonour to review it in light of Allen's past films and therefore downing its rating. It's not his best, but it's more pleasant and more insightful than so many more.

Driven mostly by its interesting matter and a grand (albeit short) performance by Christian Bale, The Big Short takes a different and sometimes schizophrenic approach at camera movements, but the fun parts are quite fun indeed, and as I said, the power of it lies mostly in its true-story feel.

While The Great Beauty had a great deal of charm, fuelled by visuals and philosophical talk, Youth starts on the same premise but ends up in a different direction: that of empty vanity. Sure, visuals are still good, but they lack the mysticism of its predecessor, and the depth. One is left wondering (without much urge to do so, though) what exactly is the purpose of this: multiple secondary characters don't come to a resolution, and we don't get why they were featured so prominently, then. Moreover, the philosophical level of the questions raised is common knowledge, something anybody could see and understand. All in all, Youth comes off as pretentious and pointless; one could say, it's a visual exercise - but in the history of cinema visual exercises have been a-plenty, and much more focused.

Great choice to bring the humour back, after a couple of dark episodes; but, what with the Simpsonian couch gag and the usual convenient escapes, there's really no point in trying to keep the plot dark. What I mean is, Spectre suffers from double personality disorder: while the action sequences and the general way in which Bond manages to slink his way out of anything just by sheer luck are light-headed and cartoonish, one feels the underlying plot of international conspiracy a bit too harsh. On another note, I don't quite like this tendency to reveal details of Bond's past, as I feel his charm relies heavily on the mystery of it. Skyfall, for instance, was good as a one-off thing, but with Spectre delving further in, we might just now too much about Bond, now, for him to be still as intriguing as he was in the beginning. Daniel Craig confirms himself in a role that seemed unfit for him when Casino Royale came out - now it's difficult to find anyone who doesn't agree he was one of the best Bonds ever.

The tension of survival in extreme conditions wasn't accented at all, considering the character's unbelievable optimism and the as much unbelievable strokes of luck he gets throughout the film. Also, the film cuts from beginning to end without a proper second act. In other words, it's just not dramatic enough. Sure, effects were nice, but that's just a matter of money rather than cinematographic skill. Still better than Gravity, though, because at least it doesn't try to take itself too seriously. Great acting comes from secondary characters, Chiwetel Ejiofor in particular, rather than Matt Damon, who's playing Matt Damon as usual.

An extremely bloated runtime filled with 3-year-old dialogue and extremely predictable outcomes. The worst of the series, which is saying a lot since the entire series was enormously bad.

What is it these days about zombies? About viruses and cures? If you only play the audio of The Scorch Trials you'd think you are watching the Walking Dead. Personally, this film is just riding the wave of all possible trends: the young adults, the zombies, the post apocalyptic world... the only one that's missing is the love story, which I believe will spring in full bloom in the next chapter. The film is utterly disconnected from the first one, and it doesn't feel at all like a continuation. It would have been okay if they released it after a couple of months, but it's been a full year, and the material in the Maze Runner was so boring and cliché I was forgetting it while I was watching it. Granted I have a bias against these kinds of genres, and an even bigger one against sequels, but The Scorch Trials relies on some very weak premises and seems to be going towards very weak conclusions as well.

I get it: the emotional and erotic tensions are supposed to be building up and up, corroborated by kinky imagery and the general sense of weirdness. But the cut here is too clean and the acting too theatrical, the whole film becomes heavy on the eyes after a while. Like with Berberian Sound Studio, the intentions are all good, it's the realisation that lacks vigour and will, for some people, result in instant boredom. In other words, it's impossible to watch The Duke of Burgundy without being carefully and tightly pointed in the direction that screams at you: "Look how artsy this is. Look how shot composition is handled. Look how good we look." Rather than letting the viewer arrive at this conclusion on their own, the movie is much too keen to lead you to it. Besides, some of the weirdness here (like the temporal setting, or the thing with the butterflies) is unjustified and adds nothing to the viewing experience. I would much rather see The Duke of Burgundy as a play, in a theatre: it's its natural environment, where acting like this really pays off, and you can be as lengthy and as reflective as you wish. As a film, it doesn't give much of a reason to keep watching it. Still better than superhero explosion galore, though, so I guess it still classifies for being one of the "good" films of 2015, if you're into it.

While some of the animation leaves something to be desired, especially for the "personality" characters, the real focus of Inside Out is the message, returning maybe to the roots of what made Pixar different from Disney in the first place... As was with Toy Story, it's more about feeling than story. Some fragments, especially at the middle, are maybe a bit rushed and we get to see Joy and Sadness wander through a lot of different places without really giving us the time to appreciate them and the ideas behind them. But, in true 3-act structuring, it all comes back into place at the end. A heart-felt story about growing up; and I suppose it's not meant for kids, who probably won't understand much of it - while adults are going to get a real kick in the subconscious.

While not being creative or original in any way, and picking up clichés as old as the 1950s for what concerns sci-fi (and not being able to convey much emotion through dialogue), Tomorrowland isn't all that bad. In particular, I found it very funny that writers at Disney decided to have a cheeky go at their own employers with all the future gloomy events, like global warming and such, which was an obvious hint at big selfish corporations - of which, people often forget, Disney is a major representative. But like many other Disney films, its fundamental message is a genuinely naive one, and that can be forgiven. Hugh Laurie's clothes and the CGI, however, cannot.

A nicely presented portrait of the helplessness of the common man put to terms with widespread corruption. I'm not familiar with the main metaphor here (the one about Job), but I can say it's hardly a new concept - the good thing is they've made a sort of realistic thing out of it, without some cheesy happy ending that could easily have killed the entire vibe of the film.

As a horror per se, The Babadook isn't terribly scary, and obviously follows nearly all the usual tropes of the genre: supernatural monster, fear of the dark, self-moving objects, lightbulbs that go out, kids, just a few jump scares. However, this is nearly inevitable, so we'll let it pass. On the other hand, the film also isn't psychologically torturing enough to really impress, As a movie, the "artsy" feel is way too protruding, the hipsteria runs very high as it is shoved into your face - especially with the extremely clean shooting and the sometimes theatrical acting of the lead.

They blew their chance at amending the mistakes they made in the first film, and they blew it hard. Not only Insurgent is just as stupid, plothole-ridden, inconsistent and boring as Divergent, but it's more of all those things; everything flows in a sequence of coincidences, character development always fails, as characters change dramatically in a matter of seconds, there are absolutely no believable villains nor heroes. Plus, you might think you're not really into story, you just want to see some action. Fine, but go look elsewhere, as there is very little here, and is so filled with cheap CGI your eyes will hurt afterwards. Besides, all the action is constantly interrupted by the protagonists' fifth-grade romantic discussions. Speaking of that, this entire thing is abismally written: for the length of the film, there is not one dialogue that isn't full of clichés and half-sentences. Enjoy the slo-mo bit near the end where the parade of Woodley goofy faces is displayed for all the world to see. She works so much better when she's in independent productions, playing real characters, rather than this so-called heroine who is in trouble, needs saving, is saved, is unsure, needs confirmation, is reassured, is told what to do, does the opposite, needs saving. Eventually she comes out as the hero, but we don't quite get to see why, as everything she's done before that leads you to believe she's worthless.

Amid some excellent ideas (the slang of the war boys is fantastic, and the world Fury Road is set in is in itself a very interesting concept), the movie is plotless and meanders through its storyline like the cars in the desert, berserk and completely crazy. If this were part one of a trilogy or something like that I would understand, but as a stand-alone, it's completely moot and a stuntshow rather than a movie. Out of the two hours of runtime, I'd say one hour and a half is just mindless action scene that don't lead to anything: there's no realisation, nor "redemption" for any of the characters. Because, contrarily as to what it might suggets, you can't really buy this sort of happy ending, considering the premises - also, why is this movie titled Mad Max when Max himself is practically a secondary character, who, if you haven't seen the previous films, appears to come out of the blue without any purpose and just a hint, through hallucinations, of a backstory. Eye candy for action fans, but for the rest of us, it's useless.

This adaptation of the classic fairy-tale doesn't really present us with anything new compared to the previous versions; this is not necessarily a bad thing, although it becomes one if the sticking to the traditional storyline isn't backed up by some new element, be it the mood, the character development, the cinematography, the soundtrack; anything, really. Unfortunately, despite the accurate choice of locations (whose beauty is nevertheless helped by CGI), the 2015 Cinderella doesn't add any, contributing nothing to the history in film of this story. In other words, the cartoon version of 65 years ago is still the better telling of the fairy-tale. As I said, the cinematography and "embellishment" of scenery is to be applauded, especially the prince's castle I'd say, but some things Disney can't ever get right in their live-action, and those are, for instance, costumes, which in this movie look cheap. Another thing they just can't swallow is the original ending of the original fairy-tale, in all its gory madness, which they still refuse to put on film. What's also strange to see is how critics have deliberately lowered their standards, maybe to condescende to the industry... I notice how "A Cinderella Story" from 2004, which was bad but at least an original adaptation, earned a meager 25, while this new Cinderella, while being essentially on the same level, gets a 67, providing it with a very underserved green background.

Human Capital takes the worst clichés about Northern Italy (greed mainly) and transforms them into a portrait - a heavily politicised one, albeit - of suburban dissatisfaction, with some sort of mild thriller-like plot to contour it. The verisimilar acting of the cast and nature of the dialogues is to be appreciated, although sometimes they decay straight into clichés. The most notable thing is the fragmented storytelling, encompassing three different perspectives of the same event and one final chapter to top it all - hardly anything new, but still, the three characters are very different from each other: we get to see the point of view of an overzealous and greedy real estate agent, the one of an upper-class trophy wife, the one of an uncorruptible young girl who doesn't seem to really care for money at all. It's quite interesting and well manufactured.

The plot could have been interesting, but the realisation of the twist is very easily predictable - I found Sturgess's performance better than Rush's or Sutherland's, the former because of lack of passion and the latter merely for the tiny screentime. Not many particular directorial choices as one would expect from Tornatore, but the visual style is refined and meticulously prepared. Not much of a thriller in the literal meaning of the term, but all in all not a horrible film.

The first hour of Focus is actually quite fun and has a great soundtrack. Of course, Will Smith is going to play Will Smith and Margot Robbie, well, she's going to play the insanely good-looking Barbie. It reminds of the good moments of Ocean's Twelve. Unfortunately, the core plot is very, very dishonestly idiotic (albeit not so predictable) and it ruins the entire movie. Which, to be clear, never meant to be a great caper, instant classic film, but could have been way more fun if they had let it spin in that direction a bit longer. As I said, great soundtrack. And great cinematography. As for the rest, average.

With such a great theme (albeit all but original), I had expected a new take on the subject. Apart from the fact that the entire philosophical tirade is trite and we've seen it in practically every single movie of this kind, Ex Machina is just yet another film that pretends to be smart when, in fact, it is a copy of a copy of a copy of something that was barely smart to begin with. The only thing that saves it is Oscar Isaac's character and performance, finally something new. Although I would have taken that character and put him in a different movie entirely - he's detached from the plot, and it really could have been any other kind of character without changing any of the storyline.

Mortdecai relies a bit too much on slapstick to be considered witty, and a bit too much on its magnificent (on paper) cast to impress us. After all, the silliness of the act is undeniable, but it's the kind of silliness a child would like. While there are plenty of British people playing American characters, this time we see two Americans (Johnny Depp and Gwyneth Paltrow) playing two British characters, and their accents were unfortunately not well studied, resulting in an obvious farce and parody of itself that I'm afraid is not intentional at all.

A modern classic in the thriller genre, The Sixth Sense is proof that the standards have been lowering themselves since Hitchcock, and by a lot. It's not clear whether this film is at times trying to be actually scary or is simply hightening the tension, with half jump scares and some sketched attempt at a scary soundtrack. I don't see how people call the final "revelation" (and note the inverted commas) a "twist", when it was clear from twenty minutes in what the situation was. Maybe, as I said, standards have been lowered so much that people go see thriller movies with their brains turned off. To put the icing on the cake, everything is whispered in the hopes of giving dialogue depth, obviously failing. Anyway, not everything is terrible: the idea is brilliant on paper, and it was supported by somewhat decent performances by Bruce Willis (we don't get to say that often) and Toni Collette. In fact, I think their performances were great when you wager in the childish script they had to deal with.

This film is a serious take on the hyperlink genre, focusing more on social disparity than the titular love: although the three episodes take place in the same city, we see three essentially unrelated stories that could well have been set in three different countries. There are snippets of great cinema, with influences clearly ranging from 50s-60s neorealism to 90's heist films - technically, the film is a great one: camera work, cinematography, writing, editing and soundtrack are all spot on. The only downfall, I found, was the fact that although yes, it is hyperlink, and yes, the episodes are somewhat connected, Amores perros still feels very distinctly trifold. Apart from this, the movie is good and is certainly one of the best in its genre. Also, comparisons to Pulp Fiction don't really make sense, since Pulp Fiction was written with a humorous intent, while Amores perros is extremely serious and doesn't ever provide comedy at all.

A silly script with dozens of major plot holes and dumb dialogues, packed with overacting and every possible cliché about street racing you can conceive. When Vin Diesel is the best actor in the whole cast, you know something's very wrong. Things get especially unrealistic towards the end of the movie, with some plot development remaining obscure (probably in the hopes that nobody would notice). Still, given its attempt at keeping it somewhat realistic and interesting, episode 1 is by far the best episode of the whole series.

A misleading title, but overall a good story with some setting we seldom see. Carrying the weight of a potentially heavy movie is Oscar Isaac, who credibly portrays a rising tycoon (although he pretty much makes one facial expression the whole movie). In an editing sense, the movie is made at the same pace it would have been if this were really 1981, convincing only at times and having some scenes drag out a bit more than they should. In a writing sense, it faults somewhere, with Abel's moral dilemma being unrealistically naive and a preposterous number of "I know"s in the script. Some other things are pushed as well: the Jewish business, for instance, and the "nice" bankers and police. However, the grey and wintry New York background helps establish a feeling of uneasiness and anxiety throughout, probably reflecting Abel's preoccupations. Maybe the plot could do with some more covering, because at times it introduces elements and never concludes them (for instance the iffy role of Abel's lawyer). But, as far as the rest goes (cinematography, story, acting, etc.) A Most Violent Year is a good film. Not a must-watch, but still in the 90 percentile of 2014 as far as big releases went.

140 million dollars of budget can give you the cheapest CGI you can imagine, along with the faker gold you've ever seen on the silver screen. 140 million dollars can convince Christian Bale, one of the best and most committed actors of his generation, to take on a lead role he obviously didn't respect enough to give it the proper preparation. 140 million dollars can give you Gladiator's plot coated in Bible. What 140 million dollars can't give you is a good film. Literally the only things to be saved from movie hell here are Christian Bale's performance (which is still his worse) and Joel Edgerton's make-up artist. The rest, I don't even know where to begin to complain. Let me try: every single thing that was computer rendered looks fake, especially in the shots of the Egyptian city; the dialogues were laughable and throughout the movie, despite it being that long, you feel like there needs to be an hour more of character development to be comprehensible; the beginning is almost word for word the premise for Gladiator, also by Ridley Scott; the plagues (perhaps the most visually would-be entriguing part) are squeezed into ten minutes; did I mention the gold looks fake? I won't comment on the animosity some people have in regards of the changing of some parts of the "original" story, because that's what happens in every film with the source material. Historically, though, the movie isn't coherent: the action here is supposed to take place around 3000 b.C., at least according to the Bible studies, but Ramses the Great lived nearly 2000 years after that. It may seem like a small mistake, but that's like mistaking George Clinton with Marcus Aurelius. Too much action, too much blubbery dialogues, too much fake gold. Too much money, too much hype, too much dreadlock, too much deus-ex-machina (haha), too much eyelash, too much facial inexpression, too much of everything which sums up in a terrible concoction that tastes of nothing. Shame on you, Ridley Scott, shame on you, cinematographer, shame on you, fx supervisor,

To little surprise, Fifty Shades managed to better than the book, but that's only a very flimsy consolation, given the extreme poorness of the source material. Everything else is rubbish from the acting to the screenplay. Casting as well, since pretty much nobody (girls included) thought Jamie Dornan to be a good choice. It only sometimes gets saved by some beautiful shots of Seattle, which suit better an ad than a movie. This film was driven by marketing (as it was bound, to be fair) and I think it was made to appeal to women only. And only to some women, even, specifically girls just old enough to get permission to see this. The R rating is bloated - a couple of swear words and full frontal nudity do not make this movie explicit at all - which was the one thing that one could like about the book. Furthermore, not only it's not explicit, it's also not erotic. This is what happens when: 1) Producers know that the movie is going to be a financial success before they even start shooting it; 2) Your source material is awful. 3) You change an appallingly written story whose only appeal is the erotica in it, and you make it tame. To specify: I don't judge the content of this movie or of the book. Erotica is fine and it can be as explicit as you wish. What I'm criticising is the mentality behind the corny dialogues and the number of awful choices that were made , which reflect in the film and make it totally uninteresting.

Unfortunately, when it comes to films like Selma, one would feel forced to give it a high score just because of its subject matter. Especially when the film is released with such appropriate timing. This is not the purpose of art, though. Nobody should teach anybody anything through movies. Selma has positive traits, such as David Oyelowo's accurate portrayal (surely supported by research) and in general an impressive cast, coupled with some glimpses of powerful imagery and cinematography - but the way this story's told, with its attempted and never fulfilled take on family drama, and dull dialogue (except for Oyelowo's speeches, and I believe those were actual MLK speeches, so they don't count in the judging of the script) really take away a lot of what this movie could have been if it had been thought through more. Like with 12 Years a Slave, there is a fundamental flaw in the way these social rights movies are made: the reassurance that just because they treat a particularly touchy subject, they ought to be exceptionally good, and, especially, that nobody can pan them or they'll be accused of some form of racism. And speaking of racism, Selma makes it blatantly clear that it did not want to portray white people in a bad light: you've got your bad LBJ, your bad George Wallace, your bad Alabama policemen, but also your good white protesters in the march. This is thrown in your face and one can see immediately that it's made on purpose. Subtlety, yet again, is amiss.

I didn't think too much of Nightcrawler, especially after the shower of positive reviews it has gotten, ranging from comparisons with Taxi Driver to praises to the extraordinary acting (by Jake Gullenhaal). I honestly disagree with both these examples, in that Nightcrawler doesn't feel at all like Taxi Driver, and Gyllenhaal, although certainly very good, is not "extraordinary". I would have liked a bit more mystery in the plot and a bit more care into writing the dialogues between characters, especially those where Lou "sells himself", because they don't sound very convincing - and the film obviously wants us to think of him as an outstanding business talker. On the plus sides, the film has got a splendid photography and colour palette, along with a cool enough sound track. And Gyllenhaal is good, just not the amount of good the reviewers are claiming.

A film about film is something arthouse likes to endeavour in, sometimes with success, sometimes not; and Berberian Sound Studio borrows from the greats (Inland Empire in particular). The idea is good, delving into the technical aspects and "behind-the-scenes" of a production, with gripping performances by the cast - however, it doesn't take off, due probably to the lack of a more structured plot. Don't get me wrong, I know these movies aren't supposed to have plot, but normally they make up for it with symbolism, or cinematography, or sense of awkwardness, or what have you. Toby Jones's descent into a state of morbid attraction towards the film he's helping to produce doesn't feel at all gradual or symbolic, but rather curt and uncalled for. The cinematography is good, the score is better, and there certainly is a sense of awkwardness throughout. It just doesn't play well with the story. In conclusion, Berberian Sound Studio goes in the right direction but at a wrong pace, or for the wrong reasons if you will. It's still interesting to watch.

Apart from excellent acting performances (and I daresay Felicity Jones's one is better than Eddie Redmayne's), The Theory of Everything does nothing to pull the audience into a subtler, less clichéd story. Those of you who expected science can stop watching immediately - unfortunately, the love story that is the substitute central plot element is not interesting enough to draw the attention of romantic-movie fans. The Theory of Everything makes Hawking's disabilities basically the only thing worth mentioning, flying over his achievements and even his general way of picturing the world - and rather focusing on his wife and his love story, despite the lack of the amount of drama this would require to be effective. In general, a clumsily edited picture with no pretenses and presented as an unfortunate series of clichés about scientists, handicap and extramarital relationships, in this order.

The storm of love and hate Interstellar has gotten since its release, and the hype it generated before it tells more about the stubborn fanbase Nolan has than his films. Interstellar, although far from the comparisons with 2001: A Space Odyssey, shares with the Kubrick movie the feeling that the story is not really about space. People have complained about plot holes. There are some, pretty clearly, and a physicist would tell you those plot holes make the movie completely unbelievable, but some of the theories presented in Interstellar have no reason not to be possible. Anyway, this is not Discovery Channel, so we should just enjoy what we see and not dig much further away from the screen. Matthew McConaughey really has hit a positive streak this last couple of years, and his acting here is perfectly on pitch, together with Jessica Chastain's. Unfortunately I can't say the same for Anne Hathaway, or Matt Damon. Or Wes Bentley. The effects have some weird flaws that only appear sometimes during the movie, in certain scenes - the CGI there looks from 20 years ago, but then goes back to modern-looking in the next scene. The cinematography is not spectacular like it could have been, especially since the majority of the movie takes place either inside the spaceship or on Earth, so that wouldn't have been so expensive to achieve. All in all, a very interesting plot (if you forget about the actual science) and an excellent performance by McConaughey, but on the technical side it falls a bit short. And by the way, I cannot understand for the world why the Oscars snub this while last year Gravity (a much dimmer, more ridiculous, and essentially uglier movie) managed to win 7. Maybe Nolan doesn't deserve Best Director, and Interstellar doesn't deserve Best Picture, but this movie is light years ahead of Gravity - pun intended.

This bungled mash-up of fairy-tales has some interesting insights - Prince Charming is not so charming at all, for instance, and Cinderella's step-sisters get what they deserve in the original way - but it's just so messy and accompanied by such poor acting performances that in the end it results to be almost unbearable. The songs (or THE song?) sounded all the same and their lyrics weren't clever: no rhymes, no nothing. Actually, Disney could use some good songwriters as of now (remember the 90s). How did they drag Meryl Streep into this, I don't know. Johnny Depp, I can imagine. People say to watch the theatre production, but unfortunately that would require me to get on a plane. The film wasn't good - maybe the musical is.

Big Eyes has set a negative note for everyone involved except Amy Adams, who's the only one who seems to think this is a valuable film. Tim Burton has long lost the charm of his earliest pictures, turning what could have been a great drama in a jolly caricature, complete with cartoonesque narration, silly music and over-the top acting (Christoph Waltz). Speaking of Waltz, his performance is not completely bad, but it's miles away from the ones that got him two Oscars - while still retaining the comical aspect. Seriously, this movie could have been a much deeper insight on 50s culture, art culture, gender roles, everything; and instead it was forced into a senseless, cold comedy that loses power after minutes. Amy Adams is the one who keeps it together. Generally unimpressive. I blame Burton and Danny Elfman (a combination that rocked some twenty years ago); one for losing his wit and his talent, the other for... well, what the hell was that score? Straight out of a bag of old tricks. No. I had hoped for more.

Birdman is a powerhouse of a film that never stops entertaining - the devil is in the details here more than anywhere, and one can't quite name what is it that grips so much. The satire is rampant though dismissive, the irony is subtle, the double identity dilemma is plain fantastic. There's wide use of some Lynch-esque magic, paired with brutal reality, and a great performance by Michael Keaton. Edward Norton is hilarious as the hyperbolic Hollywood superstar, and Emma Stone's fierce acting is spot-on. There are few missteps in Birdman, and they're forgotten quite soon. A limping drumset sets the score to the best comedy of the past year.

How is it that 3 million dollars are converted into Whiplash, and yet it takes 220 to produce Avengers? This film is definitive proof that you don't need big names (although Miles Teller and JK Simmons kind of are) to get big performances - and that it doesn't all come down to production design and CGI and expensive shots to make a good movie. Accompanied by a humble, warmly-lit cinematography, Whiplash has all it takes to be one of the defining music films so far, thanks mainly to the cast and the script. The plot halts on issues of teacher-student relationships and the importance of commitment, but the open ending suggests that might not be enough still - in substance, there is no "perfection" ever, but you have to try. It's the inspiring yet abusive JK Simmons, with his somewhat witty insults and tight black T-shirt who makes the cut. Falling from heaven, repentance and redemption are all there. Watch it.

It's really sad that PT Anderson doesn't still feel comfortable with the director's tricks he used in his early films (the long opening sequence of Boogie Nights speaks for itself) or the visual imagery of Magnolia - but Inherent Vice is better than most this year: it's demanding, masterfully acted (Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin are hilarious caricatures) and, with that 70s vibe flooding around, well shot. Sure, the number of characters and subplots make it difficult and really require the viewer to pay attention - just like Pynchon would have wanted. Keep in mind it's a spoof: it deliberately mocks just about anything it represents, from detective stories to hippie culture, from drug cartels to the clichés of real estate moguls and exploitative cops. The feel is serious - just when you analyse it a bit deeper, you realise it's all a joke. Nobody really marvels at the strangeness that is obviously there, suggesting that's all perfectly normal to them, in turn suggesting we're in an only slightly different alternate reality. In the end this film is confirmation: that PTA is a director like they used to make them, that Joaquin Phoenix is a fantastic actor (despite the sometimes annoying mumbling), that you can't really make a normal film out of a Pynchon book. Still, gripping to watch, and definitely worth the 2-hour + runtime.

The worst episode in an already appalling trilogy, The Battle of the Five Armies finally erases any doubts on the cashgrab nature of The Hobbit franchise, filling two and a half hours with action scenes and mindless dialogue, and tonnes, tonnes upon tonnes of CGI. I don't think there is one consecutive minute of this film which doesn't have CGI. What happened to The Lord of the Rings mentality, people say? It got corrupted, ironically in the same way Thorin gets corrupted in the movie; but unfortunately it doesn't redeem itself. And let's talk more about the CGI. One would naively expect, since it's the primary feature of this movie, that it be at least done well. And it isn't: half of the scenes look completely fake - there is no desire anywhere to produce at least a technical masterpiece. The Return of the King was made with a third the budget and more than 10 years prior, but it's still technically better, from the costumes to the makeup to the scenery. Now for the editing: especially at the beginning, there are several weird cuts to unrelated scenes, and it all results in a confusing storyline (not in the good sense, not in the Pulp Fiction sense), with the battle scenes lasting forever, to a point when, 90 minutes in, one finds theirselves asking "Are we done yet?" Moreover, they decided NOT to complete The Desolation of Smaug with its natural ending, that is the slaying of the dragon, but to drag it at the beginning of the third movie, I assume in an attempt to force people who liked the second to buy a ticket for the third to find out what happens to Smaug, with a cheap sit-com mentality. The Battle of the Five Armies is a pain to watch, never wants to end, and if you were to take a nap during the middle of the film you wouldn't lose one single important element of plot. It's not epic, it's not funny, it's not beautiful, it's not anything positive really. The producers must feel ashamed, but don't say you weren't expecting this.

While the story is certainly fascinating (albeit seldom true to truth), as a movie The Imitation Game really does nothing more. In fact, one could point out that a similar movie with a similar theme did a much better job in 2001. However, Benedict Cumberbatch portrays very well a character that does not really resemble the real-life Alan Turing - it's not his fault. As I mentioned, nothing is particularly great about The Imitation Game; and if what really interested you is the story told, you should read the biography.

The only good things about Big Hero 6 are the fantastic idea and rendition of San Francisco in a Japanese architectural style and the "out-of-power" Baymax scene. As for the rest, same old same old story, good vs evil and blah. I hated the excessive amount of action (all over the place, really) and I still prefer hand-drawn over CG. But now that Miyazaki's out of the picture, what can we do?

American Sniper has its moments (for me, it was the sandstorm scene), but the film didn't quite take off. Maybe it was the constant back and forth from home to warzone, or the overused "soldier and his wife" drama, or the lack of empathy for the protagonist, I don't know. I don't think Bradley Cooper had the right face for his character, even though he acts just fine throughout. A major lack of detail lets itself known, also: where's the score, where's the cinematography?

Before I Go to Sleep tries to be Memento but fails miserably at doing so, with an only apparently convoluted plot which actually leaves traces of its conclusion everywhere - so that when the final twist arrives, there's not much left to think but "I knew it". The mediocre production sets the disappointing mood for the as much mediocre performance by Nicole Kidman, and the as much disappointing performance by Colin Firth. Also, major, major plot holes throughout and inexplicable character development (a character who should NOT have changed one bit, following plot, is actually shifting towards another person entirely). Not worth the time.

The Judge's main flaw is the overabundance of clichéd characters, from the title role itself to that of Billy Bob Thornton, Also, trying to establish moral high-ground and raise questions of legality, specifically the case when something "feels" just but the law says it isn't. Well, at the end of the film, those issues remain unaddressed, and while everybody loves an open ending, this is not the case. It could be the multitude of sub-stories (relationships with the brothers, with the ex girlfriend, with the ex wife, with the daughter) that make The Judge seem generally unfinished, despite the 2-hour duration. Robert Downey Jr's comedy sure is entertaining, but I wonder if it was appropriate most times, given the seriousness of the topic. Robert Duvall's character is one we've seen dozens of times (stone-cold father trying to prepare his son for the hardships of life), therefore it doesn't leave much room for acting. It feels like the rest of the cast, in spite of the tiny screen-time, did a better job than the leads. I'd also like to point out the annoying soundtrack choices.

Setting most of a war film in the inside of a tank was deliberately an attempt to have an insight on the harsh conditions many soldiers who weren't in the trenches experienced. However, Fury is still a movie, and should have cultivated relationships between characters a bit more. They all have their moments, of course, especially Jon Bernthal and Brad Pitt, but all in all they are personas rather than people. What's best, the shootings and explosions are contained and the fighting scenes are filmed a bit differently than usual. I also liked the lengthy scene in the German house - although not as intense as it could have been. Logan Lerman's performance, I found, was shaky at first but towards the end of the film it consolidated, together with his character's fiber. Brad Pitt was very credible as "Wardaddy", but again, it's a one-way character and there was only one way to portray him.

Classic Disney-style fairy-tale that it is, Tangled sets itself right in the aura of mediocrity that has accompanied Disney these last years (ever since their abandoning classic vignette in favour of CG, in fact). They do try to change their m.o. with snappy "modern" dialogue, but the elements that characterise Tangled are the usual recipe, evil stepmother included. We've seen this story so many times now it's pointless to try and see it with new eyes. All in all, Tangled is neither here nor there, meaning it's average and with 200 million dollars of budget at least the CGI could be a little more spectacular.

One somber chuckle in almost two hours, you'd think you'd been watching drama. This unfunny sequel pays no homage to its cult predecessor, and you soon realise that the only thing that's dumb is the writing. Jim Carrey was also disappointing, exaggerating too much and resulting in a parody of himself - but the true blame for this colossal flop is definitely going to fall on the writers, who cheaply recycled the plot from the original and wrote one single funny scene. The rest are monotonous, century-old jokes.

As neither an American nor a Canadian citizen, I get to watch this movie for what it is: a movie. If we consider it a crime film, it doesn't have a twisted enough plot. If we consider it a thriller, there's not enough tension. If we consider it a documentary, it's not true enough. Where are the laughs the critics are talking about? When are supposed to laugh? If we consider it a comedy, it doesn't make you laugh enough. I understand it's a celebration of the American intelligence and it is intelligently released in a period where pretty much all of the Western World looks at Arabic countries with suspicion. I didn't know anything about the Canadian Caper and honestly, this film didn't make me curious about it. Ben Affleck was in 2012, so that meant no facial expressions, and I get it. He did the same in To The Wonder. A notable yet tiny performance by Cranston is worth mentioning, the rest of the cast were blank pawns. The score, despite being Alexandre Desplat and all, I found irritating. Not a bad movie, but not a great one either. It certainly doesn't deserve that 86. The political gets too much in the way to judge Argo without prejudice.

Were one to review Boyhood solely for its cinematic pleasure, it wouldn't make much of a fuss. Actually, I think it would score rather poorly. But that's what I wanted to do, at first: watch this film forgetting the way it's made and meant to be and just measure how good it was that way. Turns out, the "documentary" feeling soon comes into place, sneaking in naturally and unprovoked, until you realize you're not watching a normal film. That was the very point of Boyhood, I hope, and it has managed to achieve it quite effortlessly, so much so that it constitutes a huge part of the viewing experience and does so without you having to even know it beforehand. On the other hand, the script was average and the story setting the writer chose for the life of Mason is quite the anvil, dragging the 10/10 down quite a bit. All that is featured in the film feels very natural, like something that would happen in reality and something you would say in reality. All does, except for the succession of abusive father figures Mason gets. It gave the impression the writers were trying to shove this (I'd say irrelevant) background into your mouth and make you sorry for Mason. Writers, I did feel sorry for Mason, but for other reasons. I also felt angry at you for spoiling what would have otherwise been a thunderous cinematic experiment, and very close to a masterpiece.