Long Shot

Long Shot is a sweet, romantic film reminiscent of comedies form 80's and 90's. Of course, given the changes in our society and audience's tastes and sense of the humor (let's face it, for the worse), the comedy genre had to adjust and become, shall we say, less refined. But I can confidently say it's the sweetest movie where someone ejaculates in their own face.

Logan

(spoilers!!!)

When few seconds into Logan I saw the character I've only seen in toned down, PG-13 scenes tear people apart in violent and bloody fashion, I knew I was in for something refreshing. When I was reminded of Fury Road during the sequence where Logan is trying to drive through the fence, I knew I was in for something great. But when during one sequence while I still haven't composed myself after I cried I suddenly started laughing, I knew I was witnessing something really special.

Lovelace

Let me just start by saying - I have absolutely no problem with porn. I think everyone should be able to do what they want, as long as it involves consensus between people. You wanna do something hardcore? You wanna film it? Go ahead. That said, I don't necessarily have to feel sympathy or any respect for the people involved in porn industry.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

The Two Towers has always been my favorite installment in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's an incredible accomplishment - it's a popular belief that the middle part of the trilogy is always the weakest. We don't have the fun of being introduced to the world the movie is set in and we already know all the main characters plus it doesn't provide the conclusion the third part does. But for me, The Two Towers is not only (however slight) improvement over The Fellowship of the Ring but it also doesn't feel too long like The Return of the King did in its last 40 minutes.

Lincoln

Uneven. That is the first word that comes to my mind when I think of Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. The film has many moments of cinematic brilliance in it, but it also makes you wonder about how much better it would be if they just stuck to one story. It almost seems, that despite 12 years of research, Spielberg didn't have clear a idea of what he wanted to shoot - the story of the man and the president? Or the story of passing one of the most important amendments to American Constitution? The film is genius when it shows the latter. When it shows the former you keep wishing it would get back to politics as soon as possible.

Lawless

There were many movies this year that were worse than Lawless, but out of the ones I've seen none had worse pacing. It's a shame too, because there are many great moments in this movie but overall it bored the hell out of me. The film has few really amazing sequences only to turn into misguided snooze fest for several following scenes. The third act is a complete mess and all in all the only thing that keeps you watching is the lovely cinematography and the talented ensemble of actors. I shouldn't be that surprised, though - John Hillcoat's movies aren't exactly gripping. While his sullen and apocalyptic The Road was a fascinating watch, getting through this movie was a real challenge.

But let's get back to Lawless - based on real events the film tells the story of three brothers - Howard (Jason Clarke), Forrest (Tom Hardy) and Jack (Shia Labeouf) Bondurants, famous for running bootlegging operation during the depression. Howard is a drunk and a muscle, Forrest is the quintessential strong but silent type and Jack, the youngest brother, is a loser and a wannabe gangster. Guess which one of them is protagonist?

Looper

Rian Johnson's Looper is one of those movies that are destined to be a future cult classic.It's not one of those films with gigantic budgets, directed by famous directors self proclaiming it as something amazing, as if the movie was the same caliber as the second coming of Christ would be. Like last year's Drive, Looper is the brainchild of clever indie director and a true labor of love. Driven by terrific story and strong performances, Looper is one of the best science fiction movies in recent years.

Love and Other Drugs

(112 min, 2010)
Director: Edward Zwick
Writers: Charles Randolph (screenplay), Edward Zwick (screenplay),
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway and Judy Greer

Sex over substance

Maggie (Anne Hathaway) is an alluring free spirit who won't let anyone - or anything - tie her down. But she meets her match in Jamie (Jake Gyllenhaal), whose relentless and nearly infallible charm serve him well with the ladies and in the cutthroat world of pharmaceutical sales. Maggie and Jamie's evolving relationship takes them both by surprise, as they find themselves under the influence of the ultimate drug: love.

Ah, how I loved the 90s. The time when MTV actually played good music, when Johnny Depp wasn't the object of incisive salivation of 13 year-old girls, when actual good singers were considered to be good singers, not plastic platinum blondes and when “Friends” were on TV. So the beginning of “Love and other drugs”, set in 1996 when we hear “"Two Princes" in the background started off promising. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from that moment.

There are two things that annoy the living hell out of me when I watch comedies – when it's not funny and you can clearly see when director wanted you too laugh, it was just too lame of attempt to succeed and when you are bored so much you split your focus and start doing something else. During this particular movie I actually started feeding my virtual cat slash dog on Facebook. That's how bored I was.

London

(92 min, 2005)
Director: Hunter Richards
Writer: Hunter Richards
Stars: Jessica Biel, Chris Evans and Jason Statham
 

The greatest conversation you'll ever have is with a stranger.

In New York, Syd (Chris Evans) is consumed by drinks and drugs - missing his girlfriend London (Jessica Biel), who broke up with him six months ago after a two-year relationship. When Syd finds out that London's friends throw a going away party for her, he decides to go to the party without an invitation. But first he meets the banker Bateman (Jason Statham), in a bar to buy coke, and he invites his new acquaintance to go to the party with him. While locked in the bathroom with Bateman snorting coke and drinking booze, Syd recalls moments of his relationship with London

If Woody Allen was born in late seventies or early eighties, in 2005 he would make the exact same movie. That was the first thought I had after seeing “London”. And for the last 30 minutes of film I had an intense feeling of shame as Jason Statham's fangirl – because I really underestimated his talent. And the punishment for that was the state of utter shock and amazement after the movie's most powerful scene.

This is the film that is dialogue-driven. And the dialogues are fantastic – the comparison to Allen comes from the fact that the subjects the movie touches are the same – sex, relationships, life, emptiness, God. It takes really amazing dialogues to keep you interested for 90 minutes of the movie – and the conversations the characters have are so interesting you don't have chance to be bored for even a second. The film largely takes place in one apartment, but it features flashbacks of character's experiences, mostly Syd and London's relationship, which tie in with party events nicely.

Let me in

(116 min, 2010)
Director: Matt Reeves
Writers: Matt Reeves (screenplay), John Ajvide Lindqvist (screenplay)
Stars: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloë Grace Moretz and Richard Jenkins

(spoilers for "Let me in" and "Let the right one in")

She will keep you forever

I love this movie. It took a remake for me to fall in love with this story. I saw the original film - “Let the right one in” and whilst I recognized it to be a very original take on vampires and good movie, I didn't even like it. I didn't feel the emotions between Oscar and Eli, the story was cluttered with many unnecessary scenes and the whole thing didn't interest me much. When I heard there was going to be a remake I was very skeptical – I thought the change of gender in Eli's case was a cowardly move and it surely didn't get my hopes up for a good remake. But “Let me in” has so much fire and heart in it, I didn't even think of that during watching the movie.

I'm sure the original is already well known, but for all of you who don't know the plot – Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee from “The Road) is a young boy living with his alcoholic mother, dealing with bullies at school and with loneliness at his house. One night he meets a strange girl who just moved in next door, Abby (Chloe Moretz from “(500) days of summer” and “Kick-Ass). Soon he learns the girl needs blood to live...

The actors in the original movie did great job, but I prefer Kodi's and Chloe's take on their characters. Kodi is especially fantastic, the boy in the original movie didn't make me feel for him, whilst here I genuinely cared about Owen even if he allowed for terrible things to happen. Yet again he is shown as disturbed boy, imagining he is the killer in order to have control for once, when he doesn't have any facing the bullies. Owen is also shown to be very brave and his reactions to things, while sometimes strange, are understandable. He has great chemistry with Chloe – Owen and Abby are just two, disturbed, alone children, who found each other. Abby is given more character than in the original – there are two ways to interpret the whole story – either she really likes Owen, maybe even loves him and wants to be with him, or she just manipulates him because she needs another protector – someone who will kill people for her to provide her with blood, someone who will guard her during the day.

Lost Highway

(134 min, 1997)
Director: David Lynch
Writers: David Lynch, Barry Gifford
Stars: Bill Pullman, Patricia Arquette and John Roselius

The case of too many "?"

When Fred Madison finds a video tape on his doorstep that shows the interior of his house, he's convinced that someone has broken in and calls the police. Things get really complicated when he finds another videotape showing him killing his wife, and the police arrest him because his wife really was murdered! Then he disappears from the prison and we start watching the life of a young man who works in a garage

Let me tell you a little about me and David Lynch movies. After I saw “Blue Velvet” I couldn't get rid of certain images from it, like Isabella Rosselini singing, lit by this amazing blue light on stage for years. When I was watching Twin Peaks, I couldn't wait to see what happens next and few times I nearly got a heart attack. When I saw “Wild at Heart” it was so good I actually enjoyed the movie that contains both Nicolas Cage and Willem Dafoe in it. And after I saw “Mulholland Dr.” I most likely read every single thread on imdb about it. That's how much those movies moved me – I had to find answers, I couldn't stop thinking about them. You know what I did after I saw “Lost Highway”? I made myself a cup of tea and started reading Newsweek on the balcony.

Because I don't care. So far every movie I saw made by Lynch was made with this amazing passion, with this love for making movies. This one as much as still being wonderfully written and inspired is just dull. It features all of Lynch's best moves – one story suddenly changing into another, blue light, red curtains, individual outstanding scenes (like the moment Pete sees Alice for the first time, love scene, transformation scene), but it just didn't feel “alive” to me. I see characters yell, cry, smile but I can't feel emotions in it. I couldn't get interested with this movie, I kept waiting for something to happen and blow my mind away and it never happened.

But there are some great things in “Lost Highway” - very dark and curious use of music (except for Rammstein which doesn't go with Lynch surrealistic world at all), nice choice with casting of Bill Pullman and Patricia Arquette, couple of goofy detective and their awesome and hilarious exchanges (“Fucker gets more pussy than a toilet seat.”) and already mentioned, outstanding scenes and insanely disturbing and creepy moments. There are huge minuses, though - Balthazar Getty who plays Pete is awful and the story doesn't make much sense. I'm sure if you devote enough time you can get to the bottom of this, but it's not because I actually see the signs of any sense in “Lost Highway”. I believe in Lynch – if “Mulholland Dr.”, “Twin Peaks” and other of his films made sense, this one must be as meticulously constructed too, especially that Lynch said something about it he doesn't say often - “there is one correct answer”. I looked a little and there are theories – doppelgangers, the Devil, the loop – as interesting as they sound, they don't make sense and can be easily abolished. With “Mulholland Dr,” one interpretation explained it all. Here it barely explains half of the stuff we see on screen.

The acting is all right, but nothing spectacular. Arquette mostly just wanders on screen, but has some good moments, particularly the one where she strips for mister Eddy. Pullman is very good, but the best performance is Robert Blake's Mystery Man – one of the creepiest characters in Lynch's movies. However nobody apart from Blake stands out – everything is very forgettable.

I can forgive Lynch making a movie that is boring and too complex. But the movie is forgettable and that is something inexcusable. It had all the right elements but it failed. As much as I admire story that carefully crafted I think Lynch overestimated his viewer. With “Mulholland Dr,” we care enough about the characters to dig deep. But here? Why should I care about crazy jealous man and cheap whore? I didn't. The characters here don't have life in them – they are Lynch's puppets in his theater of grand confusion. And this time I simply don't wanna play.

60/100

Law Abiding Citizen

(109 min, 2009)
Plot: A frustrated man decides to take justice into his own hands after a plea bargain sets one of his family's killers free. He targets not only the killer but also the district attorney and others involved in the deal.
Director: F. Gary Gray
Writer: Kurt Wimmer
Stars: Gerard Butler, Jamie Foxx and Leslie Bibb

 

Seeking justice.

(spoilers)
I really wanted to see this movie because of the extremely mixed opinions about it – the public seems to like it, the critics, with the exception of 3 on metacritic, hated it. I don't really like vigilante justice movies, but this one was actually quite strong and for the first time in weeks I saw the entire film in one sitting.

Here is the story of a man, Clyde, who witnesses the murder of his wife and little daughter and because of the legal system the man who did that only gets 3 years in prison. After 10 years Clyde starts his revenge taking down everyone who harmed his family and were responsible for the lack of justice.

The movie has moments of greatness – it is very entertaining, filled with suspense and tension. You side with Clyde immediately, even after you find out he was constructing deadly inventions for a living. But imagine the event he went through – seeing his little girl, his flesh and bones, killed, seeing his bellowed wife raped and slaughtered in front of him. I think most of the people will sympathize with Clyde when he kills the murderers – one of them is being chopped to pieces while he is still conscious, even so – what would you to the rapist of your wife and the murder of your daughter? But then Clyde goes after everyone – he leaves murderer's attorney to die buried alive, he kills people in the district attorney's office, even the sweet assistant. Did those people deserve to die? No. In many cases they had no influence on the trial and the sentence. Even the judge – she was just doing her job, maybe I can understand her death, given that it was her decision how much did the criminals get, but murderer's attorney? Everyone has the right to defend themselves in the court of law. That's everyone's right, one of the basics written in Constitution. But even if Clyde's actions were awful and he killed a lot of yes, indeed, innocent people, I can understand it. 10 years of the anger, the unbearable feeling of loss and pain was cooking up in this man. How sane can he be? How many cases are there like this? When is the justice actually served by the court of law? Is few years of prison enough for a murder and a rapist? No, of course not.

As much as I want to praise the movie for complex characters and moral questions, the screenplay is filled with plot holes – Clyde is supposedly brilliant engineer, most likely working for dangerous men, yet he opens the door so carelessly at the beginning? No security? He builds huge tunnel under the prison and nobody notices that? And why doesn't he kill Nick, attorney who made a deal with the murderer?

And another problem – in the end we are supposed to believe Clyde's goal wasn't just revenge but teaching Nick a lesson – not making deal with murderers, putting them in prison, serving justice. Well in that case he failed – Nick is a terrible character – he is weak, he has no respect for law (“fuck civil rights!”), for his colleagues, for his own family. In the end of the movie he commits murder – yes on, in the face of law, criminal – but still he is not held accountable for this. He just keeps on going. Despicable. His character, from what I read, was supposed to be a protagonist? Well, I sided with Clyde and had no sympathy for Nick. The movie lost a lot of points for the ridiculous ending.

The film also seems to be a bit chopped, which probably happened in the post production. Take the character of Chester – he is supposedly the guy the girl who works with Nick knows. He helps them out via phone and e-mail. Yet his identity is never revealed. Yes, it is quite possible in the end that there was no Chester and that was just Clyde's alias, but still in the action/thriller movie which tries to explain a lot, something like that being left out without explanation was bizarre. Why would Clyde provide them information which would help in stopping him? After all he was determined in gong through with his plan and I don't think he intended to die. It doesn't make any sense to me. And if Chester existed? Why make him such a secret?

What I'm surprised is that people who say how stupid some scenes are are missing the point – Clyde takes off his clothes when police comes to apprehend him not (only) because the director wanted to show Butler's butt but because Clyde had to show he was unarmed. As for him having elaborate legal knowledge – the man had 10 years to plan this. During his first investigation when he answers Nick's questions, even me, a second year law student, knew that Nick had no case. No wonder the dude who had 10 years to learn knew that too. What is stupid is that attorney didn't.

The acting is actually quite decent. I don't find Gerard Burtler particularly handsome (which is odd, since I find many actors hot and he is very masculine, dark hair – my type) or interesting but he really rocked that part. I don't know why he is wasting himself on silly comedies with TV starlets. He was intense, driven and yet even though he is cold blooded murderer the audience sympathizes with him. Jamie Foxx, on the other hand is one of the worst actors around and one of the biggest mistakes the Academy ever made, and there is a heavy competition. He was awful in “The Soloist” and here he is only slightly better than terrible. I think his character was supposed to gain audience's sympathy but Foxx is so extremely unlikeable, in the end I was mad he was alive. His character is weak, seems to be corrupt and totally misinterpreting the words like “law”, “constitution”, “rights” which is the worst thing a prosecutor can do. Had they hired good actor I think the outcome would be different.

Because of the ending and huge holes in the story I give the movie 6/10 but there are moments when it is a solid 8/10. It will make you reflect, it won't bore you and it will certainly make you wonder what would you do if you were in the characters' position. The movie would be much better, though, If Clyde murdered those people solely to revenge his innocent family and Nick was actually a likeable character, who was just doing his job, without all the disrespectful remarks and awful personality.

60/100