Logan Lucky

When it comes to Steven Soderbergh ("Ocean" movies, "Magic Mike" and my favorite from him  - "Side Effects")  I like noticing how he has his "favorite actors" to work with (I know it's not only his thing, there are many directors out there who like to collaborate with specific actors). So again we get to see Channing Tatum in action (quite different from Magic Mike, be aware).
Logan Lucky has an easy plot  - two brothers (Channing and Adam Driver) decide (okay, one of them decides and the other one just jumps in) to pull off a heist during a NASCAR race somewhere in the South of the USA.
For this one I can praise the work of Mr. Tatum and Mr. Driver. They were just spot on. To see such working chemistry is a delight - they were awkward enough and had big hearts. Thank you guys. Riley Keough (my somewhat new discovery) had some characteristic clothing, make-up AND nails..Also good to see. I couldn't admire the work of Daniel Craig because it was overshadowed by Tatum and Driver. He had cool hair color. All I remember. I have nothing else to say - I enjoyed it.

It's a bit silly, it's a bit serious with some action on the side. It's a Steven Soderbergh movie: a good one to wind off to.

Rating: ★★★★

The Beguiled

Sofia Coppola has brought us some good cinema before (Lost in Translation, The Virgin Suicides etc.) and The Beguiled is not about to break that pattern.
It tells us a story about different aged women who stay at somewhat abandoned girls school during American Civil War. One of the girls while picking mushrooms finds a badly wounded soldier "from enemy lines" and decides to take him in. Then we see everyone interact with him and each other and so the story unfolds. It's a proper drama.
There were a few things besides the story itself that I enjoyed:
  • I pretty much LOVED the visual tones that were set. Such deep, slightly cold and saturated colors were like candy to my eyes. Ahhh, very appealing. 
  • Although I am a fan of Elle Fanning, Kirsten Dunst stole the show for me when it comes to acting (and writing I guess). She was so believable in her facial expressions. Great job.
  • Colin Farrell. YES. 
Main thing I did NOT like was seeing the same shot at least two times (you can see it in the image I've added. It's a beautiful scene...but I believe there are different angles that look also astonishing). I don't believe it had a hidden message, it just felt lazy. And with that repeated shot later came an upgraded version which was filmed from the same spot. It might have been first time I've noticed something like this. Did not like it at all.

All in all it's a good drama with diverse and interesting human interactions in private and in group settings.

Rating: ★★★½

The Glass Castle

I really enjoyed Destin Daniel Crettons' directed Short Term 12. It was very subtle, had a very nice tone to it and felt like an "indie movie".
The Glass Castle felt like a "Hollywood movie". Is that a good thing? When combined with the plot and the mood of the film - no.
About the movie: The Glass Castle is not linear - it switches between two timelines in Brie Larsons portrayed Jeannettes (main character and we basically follow her and her observations) and her family's life. You see the present time but the past is the one which leads the whole thing. You get to see the messiness and how it got that way. It's just a story (based on true events) about an... unusual family (somewhat hippy-like parents with issues and as a result - a bit damaged children) and their different struggles.
Despite the good work from mainly Brie La
rson, Naomi Watts and Woody Harrelson it was just too predictable and filled with cliche moments that I couldn't fully enjoy their performances. Or maybe the script was lacking, I will never be able to tell. Also - Max Greenfields character felt like an upgraded Schmidts version from New Girl. Don't know who's at fault there.
It's a proper drama however it was either filled with too many messed up sh*t together or just should've been even longer to completely resolve everything (why resolve you ask? Remember the "Hollywood movie" factor I mentioned? Well there you have it).
From a time-jumping perspective it was quite decent. It was pretty easy to follow the story.
What is a bit interesting to me - I couldn't stand hairstyle choices for "the present time" there. Usually I don't even comment on such things as hair and make-up but this time it (hairdo) was just so into my face and so not good looking/appealing that I noticed.

Anyways, it's not a bad one, it had some good punch lines here and there but overall I left the theater with a bit of a letdown feeling.

Rating: ★★★

Dunkirk

Thank you Christopher Nolan for making another very enjoyable piece of art! Enjoyed the way it started, continued AND especially how it ended. It kept me tense and on my toes from very first minutes - a very rare state when it comes to cinema experience.
Hard note: I believe you must see this movie in cinemas to truly feel it. Otherwise your judgement won't be completely honest (or respected by me). Just like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Movie is based on true events that happened during a battle in Dunkirk (France) in World War II.
What hit me the most (and in the best way possible) - sound. While watching I couldn't believe that I was not only into the story but also could find time to admire sound effects and music. There should be at least two or three Oscar nominations right there. Thank you Hans Zimmer, I felt you and didn't find you were falling asleep at the Organ this time.
The second best thing that comes to mind is...well, actually there are two which somewhat mix together. I loved how tense and up in my seat it could make me feel without showing any (maybe there was some but it wasn't that noticeable) blood or "raw injuries". Also another a bit different approach that spoke to me - never really seeing the enemy. This movie was purely showing us one side of the battle and everything that was happening on this one side. Unordinary and great.
There is not much to say when it comes to the script as there were not many dialogues happening (nor there should've been!). As the movie felt so honest you know the script was well done.
I also don't really have anything to say about the characters except that they felt very genuine and without saying much (as I told you there weren't many dialogues) they somehow felt well developed with strong backgrounds. All these men felt like real and diverse soldiers and that is all I want to see and experience.

An excellent film.

Rating:★★★★½

Baby Driver

Baby Driver comes from Edgar Wright (a guy who I connect with Scott Pilgrim vs the World and as Anna Kendricks ex-boyfriend) who has his own style... but is it for everyone?
No. But is there anything that is for everyone (except for basic human needs of course)? Anyways, back to the movie.
Before going to the cinema I tried not to rewatch trailers, tried not to know anything about it but still could see the very good reviews (didn't read them) coming in. I thought it will be one good, easy-going movie with a sense of light spirit over it. Baby Driver did not live up to my expectations. I would describe it as a car chasing, light heist action movie with silly romance on the side, filled with men and two weak women characters. Boom! Done! Okay, let's make it longer.
Here goes the good stuff:
- Soundtracks were cool.
- John Hamm. There is no wonder why he was so fitting for the role, (portraying a somewhat cocky macho criminal) he was playing as it was written FOR him (found that out just before the movie started). Splendid job, John, splendid.
- Some car chasing scenes were also enjoyable.
- All in all it was entertaining. Not the most fun I've had though.
Here comes the not necessarily bad, but let-downs:
- I can't see why it has such great ratings. It wasn't that fresh - yes, some plot parts were new for me but overall it had high predictability percent.
- It was a men-movie. Weak, weak women characters (did I mention they were basically two there? TWO...and maybe like two others somewhere in the background). I can't. Imagine you meet a guy two times and see clearly that something's off and already are in love and ready to ruin your life and just run off to wherever? Really? That's just a bit (or very) upsetting. I call b*llsh*t on this.
- Male characters weren't that great either. 
- Not enough heisting and scheming (I know it's a DRIVING movie but it is about a guy driving a getaway car so I had hopes..)
- There were other disturbing character changes that I did not approve of.

Overall, as it has that many good reviews, I think you should see it and prove me wrong. It wasn't bad but it definitely wasn't that "fresh" or amazing. No.

Rating: ✮✮✮

Song To Song

Terrence Malick is not my favorite director but there is one thing he always delivers for me - beauty. This was once again an eye-candy. Visuals, sights, wide angles - thank you very much.
There are barely dialogues there, usually voice-overs because the story is being told  from a diary point of view I would say. We hear character thoughts and reflections and basically all dialogues are "silenced out". It's appealing. Casting hit the bulls eye for me.
What could've been better: the script (somehow through all the expressed emotions it still felt shallow for me), songs they used could've been less but played for longer periods of time or something..Also - editing. Film felt very chaotic and so I couldn't really attach to anyone or anything (except for the nature shots).
Conclusion: It had the potential of being unbelievably amazing but in the end it is just beautiful with excellent cast and too much "cutting" and "putting it back together".

Rating: ✭✭✭

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Some of us already know something about Arthur and his beloved sword in the stone and its' strength. Some of us don't. It doesn't matter. What matters is that this movie was quite great!
What good things you will possibly see or get out of this:
 - Great, interesting operator work AND editing! The different angles and ways the cameras were turned and then cut and cooked up again in such a pleasant way..tiny bulbs of joy popped inside of my soul because of the likeness of what my eyes saw and brains comprehended. So prepare for nicely done visuals.
- LANDSCAPES
- Jude Law as an evil character was a bit funny to see. He did a good job. Just still find it funny.
- It's a Guy Richie movie (previously famous for different movies, most popular - Snatch). It goes without saying - there will be some good and funny punch-lines. Enjoyed the screenplay.
- Modern yet with a sense of medieval times soundtracks - lovely and appropriate.
- As I have no intention of spoiling anything... but I also can't not speak..Oh well, whatever - In an early stage of the movie there is a montage about the little Arthur and how he grows up and what happens in the mean time. I found it to be a very cool way of showing things that are important to get but not that important for the main story. So I was happy of what I saw and also about how much time out of the movie these scenes took.
- Also a teeny, tiny thing at the end of the movie that just made me smile and is not a spoiler - I saw dirty fingernails. It may sound a bit odd but it is nice to see these little but realistic things in movies.
What bad things to expect?
- I can't really name any. I wasn't ecstatic or on the edge of my seat all the time, there were little parts were the movie felt flat but they were just for a very short period of time.
Here it goes - Medieval tale-ish movie about king-to-come Arthur and the sword told (and definitely shown) in a bit of a nowaday-way. Entertaining.


Rating: ★★★