Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2019
	Director: J. J. Abrams (Super 8, Star Trek, The Force Awakens)
	Actors: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega (Attack the Block), Adam Driver (J. Edgar, Lincoln), Oscar Isaac (X-men: Apocalypse, Annihilation)
	Country: USA
	Genre: SF, Fantasy, Epic, Adventure
	Conditions of visioning: 05.01.2019, Cine Hoyts Mallplaza Antofagasta
Synopsis: While the Rebellion regroups its Forces, Kylo Ren (Driver) searched the Galaxy for the source of a message sent by a Sith Lord thought dead.
Review: After being disappointed by the two previous episodes, I was entering the theater with low expectations so they were exceeded and this last episode of the Skywalker saga turned out to be my favorite of the sequel trilogy. Like in other modern blockbusters, it seemed to me that the first half hour serves the double purpose of showing everything you thought was spoiler from the trailer, and getting you slowly into the movie with a lot of action and few emotional scenes in order to wait for the audience to have finished their popcorn so that you can finally start enjoying the movie. I like that this movie brings a kind of conclusion to the stories of the characters we have discovered in this new trilogy: Rey, Poe, Finn, Kylo, while still delivering a good dose of fan service with appearance by the stars of the original trilogy. However, the movie spends a lot of time undoing what the previous one The Last Jedi did, to steer back in the direction that director J. J. Abrams initiated with The Force Awakens. It turns out that the Studio (well, Disney now) didn't plan the story of the three films ahead ; they used the starting ideas of Abrams but then it seems like they wanted to keep the flexibility to react to the Box Office between two films. An apparently good strategy to maximize the money return and minimize the audience disappointment, but not one to make a cohesive trilogy. Even George Lucas had the prequel trilogy planned! I like that this movie concludes with a tone similar to the one of the original movies, this is what I wanted, I didn't want a new take on the Star Wars Universe because I knew it was too risky for the studios to go this direction. In the end they went half-half which is not great for anybody. Fortunately for me, they conclude in my preferred direction. The movie is very dense, many many things happen as the characters move from place to place (this calls for a second viewing) but I was never confused and questionning this planet-hopping less than the few adventures in The Last Jedi (argh the casino planet). Note that while The Force Awakens was sold as Han Solo's movie and The Last Jedi Luke's, this one was planned as Leia's movie but sadly actress Carrie Fischer passed away before production started. So the ended up using left-over footage from the previous movies for this one and drastically reduced her role. It is disturbing because her character lacks interaction with the others and the special effects are not perfect, but I found that given the circumstances the studio did its best. The space battles are exciting and the light sabre battles better than before. But I still found many problems with the movie, like character's motivation and reactions, and some basic logic (everybody survives the apparently deadly giant waves). It is also too obviously gender-conscious, with many voices of female Storm-troopers and a same-sex kiss at the end. Part of the ending reminds of the Beacons of Gondor from The Return of the King but that's always a winner, although the music should have been pumped up some more. Another part of the ending reminded too much of that other recent Disney movie Avengers: Endgame. You will know when you hear it. If you can't have enough of hearing about this movie, I can recommend this breakdown by NewRockstars, this recap by Kevin Smith although not as heartfelt as he did before, and this review of the sequel trilogy by The Cosmonaut Variety Hour. I will probably need a second viewing to get clearer ideas on the movie, and maybe revisit the two others. Now like everybody does, let me try to rank all the Star Wars movies (and some series) from my least to most favorite. Disclaimer: this is based on my feelings of today and may not be fully aligned with the ratings I gave at the time I posted my reviews, and this is such a difficult exercise don't blame me for it: 14. Attack of the Clones (I like a few scenes around Mace Windu's "This party's over" but can't stand the love story and the rest) 13. The Last Jedi (I can only watch it for Luke and Yoda) 12. Revenge of the Sith (for the ending) 11. The worst seasons of The Clone Wars, like season 5 10. Solo 9. The Phantom Menace (for nostalgia of my first viewing, but then with the short version of the Pod Race) 8. The Force Awakens (I don't like the Starkiller base) 7. The best seasons of The Clone Wars, like season 6 6. The Mandalorian (more than just fan service) 5. The Rise of Skywalker 4. Rogue One (surprising) 3. A New Hope (of course I love it, tight with the two others) 2. Return of the Jedi (sorry, I love how it concludes the trilogy) 1. The Empire Strikes Back (best balance of everything Star Wars)
Rating: 7 /10

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2019
	Director: Anthony Russo & Joe Russo (Captain America 2-3)
	Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder), Chris Evans (Fantastic Four 1-2), Scarlett Johansson (Match Point), ...
	Country: USA
	Genre: Action, SF, Epic
	Conditions of visioning: 02.05.2019, Costanera Center Cineplanet.
Synopsis: After their last encounter with the Mad Titan Thanos, what's left of Earth's mightiest heroes have to decide whether to avenger the fallen ones, or move on.
Review: The spoiler-free period of 1-2 weeks is apparently over (according to the directors and the studio), although I don't like this tendency of forcing us to watch those movies as fast as possible under the threat of spoilers (the same goes for the final season of Game of Thrones). Still, I will try to keep my review relatively spoiler-free as usual (except for a few comments you should highlight to read if you've already seen the movie). After such an unbearably long wait I went to see the movie twice, the first time virgin of the trailers and predictions from the previous three weeks so that I could be surprise and express myself during the projection, the second time more relaxed to catch more details and get a better feeling around the whole thing. For those who don't know, this is the sequel to the 2018 Avengers: Infinity War and the last of 22 movies in the first 3 phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The end of an 11-year era really. In short, if Infinity War was the culmination of what Marvel led us to in the past decade, Endgame is more of a satisfying (and necessary) conclusion. Satisfying indeed, I liked it a lot and think the directors and studios couldn't have done much better. Necessary also, to prepare for the future of the franchise / Universe. The movie starts with a bang and cleverly shows all that was seen in the first trailer so that you can then enjoy the rest of the show with a free mind. Then it goes a bit where I was expecting (time travel) but doesn't use that tool as the ultimate weapon: heroes still are. So that even if some things were expected from the trailer, obvious reasons or stolen set images, what happens to the characters and relationship between them was still to me fascinating to watch unfold. And the voyage our heroes take is also an excuse to have them introspect and make unexpected encounters (like Tony with his father). At the same time the story manages to keep a level of humor usual in the franchise (ha ha I loved fat Thor). Well written and well done. All leads to a third act that I found fully satisfying, in particular via three moments that got great outbursts of emotion from someone like me that has been following this Universe since 11 years: Cap yielding Thor's Hammer, the Avengers all-hands gathering and Tony's death. At the first viewing I found that the music was lacking punch, especially in those last scenes, and especially compared to the one during Thor's arrival at the end of Infinity War. On second viewing it was better, but still I believe it should have been played much louder. At first viewing I also had the impression that many special effects had been rushed, in particular for the scenes of compositing of many known characters in ensemble shots, while obviously all those actors could not be gathered on the same day for the one shot. I had the impression that all the edges of the characters were blurred and that they were not fitting with the background. This kind of composite scene was for example better done with Christopher Lee in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. Again it felt better on second viewing but still, I was not impressed by special effects although they are omnipresent in this movie. In general I liked the movie a lot, and I upgraded Infinity War from 7/10 to 8/10 so that I could give 7/10 to Endgame, because I like the other one a bit more. For a full breakdown of the movie you may watch this video from the YouTube channel New Rockstars, or the emotional walkthrough from director Kevin Smith. At the time of writing this post, Marvel is about with this movie to beat Avatar's record of worldwide most lucrative movie ever (more than 2.6 billion dollars!!!), so I seriously don't know where they can go now. The trailer of Spiderman: Far from Home to be released in July gives us a hint of a post-Endgame world and Marvel has announced dates for two movies in 2020, three in 2021 and three in 2022. More details on titles will be given in a few months time but we expect sequels to Ant-Man (maybe), Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Spider-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (with director James Gunn returning) a solo Black Widow movie, new franchises like The Eternals and Shang Chi. The big question is: will they manage to combine all of those to build up to a new Avengers movie?
Rating: 7 /10

Justice League (2017)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2017
	Director: Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen)
	Actors: Ben Affleck (Argo, Paycheck), Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman), Jason Momoa (Conan)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Action, Fantasy, Epic
	Conditions of visioning: 31.03.2018, VOD, 14" computer screen.
Synopsis: After Superman's sacrifice, Bruce Wayne (Affleck) is looking for allies to help him fight a threat he feels to be imminent.
Review: DC comics is struggling to develop its own Cinematic Universe (called the DC Expanded Universe) following the Marvel example and trying to reap the same benefits. But DC is following a different approach, one darker with less humor, and it is releasing its equivalent to The Avengers without having taken the time to introduce all of its heroes. Also the franchise is more director-driven as it is the third movie by Zack Snyder after Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, the only other movie in the Universe being the recent Wonder Woman. Oh, I almost forgot the forgettable Suicide Squad. Finally, the Universe doesn't integrate so well TV-series as Marvel does: Supergirl, Flash, The Arrow, Gotham, Legends of Tomorrow: they don't really mix with the movies and in fact use different actors for the same characters. So what about this movie? In the end not as bad as I feared: Snyder starts to know how to make cinema adaptation of comic books, Affleck is an OK Batman, Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) and Lois Lane (Amy Adams) bring a female touch in this violent world, the Flash a touch of young humor not unlike Spiderman in Captain America: Civil War, Victor Stone some robotic special effects a-la-Iron Man, and Aquaman is an anti-hero adequately played by Jason Momoa. However I still find the DC Universe hardly believable. For some reason I have no problem with Captain America, Thor or Thanos, but I am having a hard time with an invincible man of steel, amazons, Greek Gods, bare-chested Aquaman, bare-legged Wonder Woman, Atlanteans and the power-hungry Steppenwolf, although he is not far from the Frost Giant king in Thor. Still, I took some pleasure when the heroes assemble for the first time, even though it was after a kind of recruitment process and not an long-nurtured need. A sequel is expected in 2019. I wonder how far will this Universe survive...
Rating: 4 /10

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2017
	Director: Rian Johnson (Looper)
	Actors: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega (Attack the Block), Adam Driver (J. Edgar, Lincoln), Mark Hamill (Sushi Girl), Carrie Fisher (Austin Powers), Laura Dern (Jurassic Park)
	Country: USA
	Genre: SF, Adventure, Epic
	Conditions of visioning: 20.12.2017, Mathäser Kino, 3D
Synopsis: The First Order is closing in on the last members of the Rebellion led by Leia (Fisher), while Rey (Ridley) is trying to convince Luke Skywalker (Hamill) to join the battle or at least teach her the Jedi ways.
Review: There is a lot I didn't like in this new Star Wars movie. Like the previous one The Force Awakens, it starts with a modern joke I find has nothing to do with the Star Wars Universe (this time about a bad audio connection like happens on Skype). A quite severe criticism is that I found that the story is not fluid and doesn't transport the viewer in this wonderful Universe created by George Lucas. It tries and fails with smooth transitions between the different storylines, and I found the music by John Williams to be too loud and omnipresent instead of gently underlying the drama scenes and carrying the Action ones. On top of that, if the story of The Force Awakens was a copy of A New Hope (I have just downgraded it from 7 to 6/10), this one is obviously inspired by both The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi in many not-so-small details like a foot battle against AT-AT-looking machines on a Hoth-looking planet, a chase through an asteroid field (with the same music), and last but not least the "Emperor" trying to convert a young Jedi-to-be to join him (spoiler, highlight to read) while witnessing the expected end of the Rebellion, only to be betrayed by his own apprentice that he thought he fully controlled. I would think that the next Episode, to be released end 2019, can finally start to tell a fresh story. About the characters, I found that the old and new ones I was happy to see in The Force Awakens were here pretty weak: Finn, Rey, Poe, Kylo Ren, Supreme Leader Snoke, Chewbacca (totally transparent), Leia, Luke. I was expecting a magic apparition by Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) to save the day but it didn't come and we got Benicio del Toro instead. Directing / Editing: I found the movie 30 minutes too long while the pace was too rushed, never leaving us the extra seconds in each and every scene to let the information and feelings sink in, even during the scene between Luke and (spoiler) Yoda, reminiscing best of the original trilogy. And many other scenes that should have been emotionally strong also failed in involving me. Last bad point but that can be avoided (I had no choice): the 3D is pretty useless and when it could bring something, badly done. The 3D conversion process is pretty bad with high-contrast images like... in space, which are numerous in a Star Wars movie like they were in Gravity after which I also complained. Humpf, so is there anything good in that movie?? I would say a few awesome-looking scenes that still remind of the good old years spent watching the original trilogy over and over again. I am not looking forward to the next Episode of the main Star Wars storyline, maybe there is more hope towards the spin-off Solo: A Star Wars Story to be released next year, after the excellent surprise of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
Rating: 5 /10

The fall of the Roman empire (1964)

	Also Known As: La chute de l'empire romain
	Year of first release: 1964
	Director: Anthony Mann
	Actors: Alec Guiness, Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Christopher Plummer, James Mason
	Country: USA
	Genre: Epic, Drama
	Conditions of visioning: 26.12.2016, TV Arte, French version
Synopsis: The death of Marcus Aurelius (Guiness) leads to a succession crisis, in which the deceased emperor's son, Commodus (Plummer), demonstrates that he is unwilling to let anything undermine his claim to the Roman Empire. The other siblings of Marcus Aurelius, Livius (Boyd) and Lucilla (Loren) have his confidence confirmed by his favourite philosopher Timonides (Mason).
Review: The Hollywood Ancient Rome historical epic has been a subgenre in trend in the USA and in Italy (subset of the so-called Peplum subgenre) in the 1950s and 1960s. The fall of the Roman empire focuses on the end of the Marcus Aurelius era supposed to be a good emperor in the Roman history.  Actually the story is more telling about the rivalry of Commodus and Livius than on the big History. As often in Hollywood historical epic, the History is modified. There was no Lucilla. The rivalry may have existed but with thousands kilometers distance. This does not make the story of the movie worse. Actually it transmits better the idea of political rivalry and murders who was typical of the period after Marcus Aurelius.  The acting of Plummer and Mason is quite good. But I have not been impressed by Sophia Loren nor by Stephen Boyd even if they both had good roles. Not impressed neither by the story line.  One scene is remarkable. The pursuit with the horses through the woods! This was impressive for its directing. I find that programming this movie nowadays is perfect. At a time when many politicians try to build walls and defeat people instead of talk and collaborate with them (as in the movie). This can be seen as an artistic warning that needs to be reminded time to time.
Rating: 5 /10

Quo vadis (1951)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 1951
	Director: Mervyn LeRoy, Anthony Mann
	Actors: Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr, Peter Ustinov
	Country: USA
	Genre: Epic, Drama, Romance
	Conditions of visioning: 25.12.2016, TV Arte, French version
Synopsis: Returning to Rome after three years of war, General Marcus Vinicius (Taylor) meets Lygia (Kerr) and falls in love with her, though as a Christian she wants nothing to do with a warrior. Though she grew up Roman, the adopted daughter of a retired general, Lygia is technically a hostage of Rome. Marcus gets Emperor Nero (Ustinov) to give her to him for services rendered but starts slowly to reject the ideas of Nero.
Review: I had the opportunity to watch an old North American Epic. I watched many of these as a kid and this awoke my interest to history. But this is a movie, not the reality of the history. Once we know that, we can continue watching.  The story is based on some episodes of the reign of Nero in the Ancient Rome. The contrast between the Roman militaries and the peaceful Christians (some also Romans) is striking. When we see the Christians considered as conspirator while we know that they are supposed to be the good guys in the North America of that time, it makes it dramatic. But also quite funny if we compare the Christians with the communists in North America at the time of the deleterious McCarthyism. There are different kind of message that may have been transported by this movie. Most of the epic genre aims at glorifying one country, one culture or one people. This one is a bit ambiguous to me. Even if I did not like much the acting by Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr and Peter Ustinov are brilliant. There is a kind of theatrical atmosphere in the acting. That I remember actually for the whole genre of Hollywood epic.
Rating: 7 /10

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2016
	Director: Gareth Edwards (Monsters, Godzilla)
	Actors: Felicity Jones (The Amazing Spider-man 2), Diego Luna (The Terminal, Elysium), Alan Tudyk (Dodgeball, Firefly TV-series), Forest Whitaker (Platoon, Ghost Dog, Arrival), Mads Mikkelsen (Hannibal TV-series, Pusher)
	Country: USA
	Genre: SF, Adventure, Epic
	Conditions of visioning: 26.12.2016, French version, 2D, Cinéma A L'affiche, Chaumont
Synopsis: The father (Mikkelsen) of Jyn Erso (Jones) abandoned her at a young age to work on a massive new weapon for the Galactic Empire. Once adult she is contacted by the Rebellion to help contact her father.
Review: Forget about Georges Lucas' embarrassing vision in the Episodes 1, 2 and 3 and J. J. Abrams' referential Episode 7: The Force Awakens, Rogue One is the Star Wars movie you have been waiting to see since Return of the Jedi. The concept of a spin-off is not new in this Universe, do you remember the 1984 TV-movie Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure seen on TV or the 1985 Ewoks: The Battle for Endor that I have no memory of? The TV-series The Clone Wars is more of a filling between two movies of the saga using the same main characters. I couldn't have missed watching the movie in theaters (in 2D as intended by the director, not in a useless quickly post-converted 3D) but I was not very optimistic about it for several reasons. First, since Disney bought the franchise, the movies have to obviously be children-friendly. Not that the original trilogy was forbidden to them but that was a limitation I would have preferred didn't exist. Then Episode 7 left me with mixed feelings, and although I like the work from Gareth Edwards, he is known from Monsters and Godzilla to show battles off-screen, which is definitely what I don't want in a Star Wars. I also read that there had been some re-shoots after principal photography of the movie, which could indicate creative differences between the director and the studio. Last but not least I didn't know what to expect from a story with limited stakes and of which we already know the ending, but movies like Titanic have proved me wrong on such a point. And in the end Rogue One did it as well. It took me about half an hour to replace exactly the movie in the saga and overcome the disturbance of watching it dubbed in French (I will watch it again in Original version as soon as possible), but then I started to fully appreciate the stakes which were not as small as I thought. I was also a bit confused with the role of some characters but came to appreciate them all in the end, in particular the "illuminated" played by Donnie Yen. I found Diego Luna at ease in his role, but Felicity Jones less charismatic, in particular less than Daisy Ridley as Rey in Episode 7.  One thing I appreciated a lot in Rogue One are the reference to A New Hope and the original trilogy, usually more subtle than the too obvious revival of the old characters in Episode 7. For example C3PO and R2D2 are only briefly seen and not for a stupid joke (oh the new trilogy...). Names of planets and people and ships can be related to the ones we know, and a few key characters can also be glimpsed for our greatest pleasure (one even linking the movie to the new trilogy). I will not mention them to avoid spoiling, except for Grand Moff Tarkin playing in A New Hope by Peter Cushing and chronologically first mentioned in the Star Wars Universe during the third season of The Clone Wars. This great actor died in 1994 but an agreement was concluded with his Estate to digitally resuscitate him in Rogue One. I find it to be a great idea, given the importance of this characters at this moment in time of the Star Wars story. Unfortunately I found his digital face a bit too stiff, giving away the trick. Contrarily to what I feared, Rogue One does contain fully blown space battles that gave me shivers and reminded me of my favorite one in Return of the Jedi, in a good way and not with the feeling of watching a copy like in Episode 7. And I was pleased with the few touches of humour present in the movie, not in the J.J. Abrams style of "you go first, I go first" I criticized about Episode 7. A quick word about the sets: the original trilogy contains classic landscapes that defined the look of the Universe, and the new trilogy contains impressive ones as well, but for some reason the tropical beach of Rogue One is maybe my second favorite one after the ice planet Hoth. I loved watching the scenes in that setting. Like to eliminate my last critics, the movie increased in intensity to reach a climax that simply made me jump from my seat in exclamation and applause. In fact I am tempted to watch Episodes 3 and 4 to better bracket the time period of Rogue One before seeing it again.
Rating: 8 /10

Wrath of the Titans (2012)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2012
	Director: Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Los Angeles, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)
	Actors: Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson (Taken 1-3), Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day, Gone Girl), Ralph Fiennes (Skyfall)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Epic, Action
	Conditions of visioning: 27.08.2016, in-flight entertainment 10 screen
Synopsis: After his wife Io passed, Perseus (Worthington) lives a fisherman life with his son. Until his father Zeus (Neeson) announces him the end of the World.
Review: I already found Clash of the Titans to be a useless remake of a Classic (even though very dated) so I watched this sequel out of curiosity. There are more titans, monsters and Gods for Perseus to fight with or against, but it is all so badly put together. The story seems to be following a recipe used many times already (the path of the hero) but the studios producing such movies don't even make the effort of doing it right anymore. It is just a succession of scenes alternating action and supposed character development but none make you really feel involved in the stakes. The only thing to be saved from that movie, like from others similar, is the quality of the special effects. They really did a very good job, although some designs may look borrowed from The Lord of the Rings (the Titan = the Balrog). I also found the opening action scene well shot, with the inclusion of long sequence-shots. I liked the reference to the original Clash of the Titans in the form of the mechanical owl that we glimpse at some point. But the movie suffers from a terrible lack of interest and embarrassing holes in the editing, making it look like a patchwork of elements re-shot after catastrophic test projections.
Rating: 2 /10

Beowulf (2007)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2007
	Director: Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future 1-3, Cast Away, Contact)
	Actors: Ray Winstone (Indiana Jones 4), Crispin Glover (Willard, Charlie's Angels 1-2), Robin Wright Penn (The Congress, Forrest Gump), Angelina Jolie (Lara Croft 1-2, Wanted), Anthony Hopkins (The Silence of the Lambs, Fracture)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Fantasy, Animation, Epic
	Conditions of visioning: 06.10.2015, Blu-ray, Home cinema
Synopsis: The kingdom of King Hrothgar (Hopkins) is threatened by his shame Grendel (Glover), until the hero Beowulf (Winstone) comes to the rescue.
Review: After his positive experience on The Polar Express, Robert Zemeckis pushed even further the at-that-time young concept of motion capture, two years before Avatar made it what it is nowadays. And I found that he really nailed it with that movie, better than with the previous one or the following A Christmas Carol. It seems to me that this heroic fantasy tale was the perfect topic for such an adaptation. The Epic scale of the story told (the legends of Grendel and Beowuf clashing) make for a grand spectacle, also superbly illustrated by Alan Silvestri's soundtrack. I remember that when I first saw Beowulf, it took me fifteen minutes to realize that it was not live action but motion capture and CGI characters. I then rewinded to watch the whole thing again with this new information in mind, and right after the movie I watched all available documentaries on the Blu-ray to learn about the making of this incredible visual experience. It is only too bad I never saw it in 3D, for which many in-your-face effects were designed. There are however some drawback to the technical process: the animation of the horses for example is far too rigid while the dragon, an imaginary creature for which we don't have a reference, looks more believable. And it is known that the most difficult things to reproduce in CGI are photo-realistic living beings. This is why Pixar keep on using toys and other inanimate objects in their movies. Another example is the face of the actors, which texture was rendered quite impressively and which motion was also very well captured, but in which the eyes often seem to wander in the wrong direction. Those "details" were mastered two years later by James Cameron and his crew, owing not a little to Zemeckis' experimentation. Steven Spielberg's The Adventure of Tintin also owes a lot to those first attempts at photo-realism. But enough of those technicalities: I liked the music, the legend, the story, the characters, the actors' play (the usual choice of Crispin Glover for the torture mind, and Angelina Jolie as Grendel's Mother, waw) and the look of the movie. An excellent adaptation. I fear to watch the 1999 Beowulf with Christophe Lambert and make a comparison.
Rating: 7 /10

Conan the Barbarian (1982)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 1982
	Director: John Milius (Red Dawn)
	Actors: Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator, Escape Plan), James Earl Jones (Patriot Games, The Hunt for Red October), Max von Sydow (The Seventh Seal, Minority Report), Mako (The Sand Pebbles, Red Sun Rising)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Fantasy, Epic
	Conditions of visioning: 15.07.2015, Blu-ray, Home cinema
Synopsis: Conan the Cimmerien (Schwarzenegger) sees his whole tribe exterminated before he is sent as a child to a labor camp. He will grow to be a fierce warrior driven by revenge.
Review: Tricky question: Who is the main character in John Milius' Conan the Barbarian? My answer would not be the name of the Austrian action hero, but rather the soundtrack composed by Basil Poledouris, sometimes considered (and not only by me) as one the best soundtracks ever. It plays such a huge role in this movie, accompanying perfectly the quests and battles of the heroes, that I can listen to it quite often (about once a week), never getting bored but rather seeing in my head the movie scenes that go with the tracks. More on this at the end of this post. I find that John Milius and Oliver Stone made a wonderful job at adapting the written work by Robert E. Howard from the 30's, itself already adapted to a Marvel Comics series in the 70's. For example they cleverly got away from the classical adventurer look of Conan (athletic, wearing boots and his hair rather short) to make it really look like a barbarian, and they took the risk of hiring an unknown actor barely speaking English for the lead role. Also they made this character speak as little as possible, which I find always works best for this kind of mysterious character (see for example Dredd or Mad Max: Fury Road). Arnold Schwarzenegger is just perfect for the role, it is a pity that we then saw him only in an average sequel Conan the Destroyer and an unofficial spin-off Red Sonja. Further projects (Conan the Conqueror) were cancelled, I didn't like at all the 2011 remake with Jason Momoa, and even if a new adventure is planned with Arnold taking back his role (The Legend of Conan), it will never be the same again. A usual criticism to this movie is that story is very simple and played by uneven actors. I cannot argue with that but at the same time it doesn't bother me, having excellent performance by Schwarzenegger, the great James Earl Jones and a brief apparition by Max Von Sydow, next to other more forgettable actors. The strength of the movie for me is in its Epic proportions and battles, carried as I already mentioned by a perfect soundtrack. Take for instance the opening scenes: introduction to the Cimmerian village interleaved with the enemy approaching and culminating with the attack and the capture of Conan. Then the movie and music together flawlessly evolve into the "Wheel of Pain" scene in which we will see Conan reach adult age. I counted that during those first 17 minutes there is only one short scene with dialog (not counting the spoken introduction): when Conan's father teaches him the strength of steel and tells him about their God Crom. Those 17 minutes are probably the strongest opening I have ever seen in a movie, in all genres. Heroic Fantasy is a sub-genre that is easy to turn into ridicule (see all the laughable Conan copycats that followed, mainly from Italy), but for me the original Conan the Barbarian is a masterpiece in this genre. Be careful to watch the uncensored version (see more details below).
Rating: 9 /10

Hercules (2014)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2014
	Director: Brett Ratner (Rush Hour 1-3, X-men 3)
	Actors: Dwayne Johnson (The Rundown, The Scorpion King), John Hurt (1984), Ian McShane (Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Death Race), Rufus Sewell (Dark City)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Action, War, Fantasy, Epic
	Conditions of visioning: 24.06.2015, 3D Blu-ray, Home cinema with 22" 3D computer screen
Synopsis: Hercules (Johnson) and his companions are in search of a noble cause to defend, while stories of the legendary Twelve Labors of the semi-God are being spread by his nephew.
Review: Since the slow but steady revival of the modern Peplum genre with Gladiator in 2000, we have received a few movies per year in this genre, so I was expecting the legend of Hercules to be told at some point, and who better than the ex-wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson now action-hero to play the demi-God. Note that a similar project was born on the same year: The Legend of Hercules directed by Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger), which seemed more promising but made a flop. Since the very beginning of the movie the viewer is made to doubt the fantastic aspect of Hercules' Labors (the movie doesn't deal with those but actually takes place afterwards), being given hints of the truth behind all that. I liked this approach and was not surprised to find out that it came from the Comics the movie is adapted from (Steve Moore and Chris Bolsin's The Thracian Wars), as it is often the case those days. The story is indeed interesting and some visuals well-thought (like Hercules fighting soldiers equipped with shields decorated with a Lion's head, his symbol, resonating with his internal struggle), except for the mid-movie twist which was very predictable. What remains original about the movie then? Not much, maybe it is just a cinematic adaptation for those who don't find comics book immersive enough. But surprisingly, I found it to be the best role ever for Dwayne Johnson; the beard make him look different and he covers a panel of emotions larger than his usual comic of tough-guy sides.
Rating: 5 /10

Pompeii (2014)

	Also Known As: -
	Year of first release: 2014
	Director: Paul W.S. Anderson (Resident Evil, Death Race)
	Actors: Kit Harington (Game of Thrones TV-series), Emily Browning (Sucker Punch), Kiefer Sutherland (Mirrors), Jared Harris (Sherlock Holmes 2), Carrie-Anne Moss (The Matrxi 1-3)
	Country: USA
	Genre: Epic, Action
	Conditions of visioning: 03.06.2015, Blu-ray, Home cinema
Synopsis: The people of Milo (Harington) are exterminated by Roman forces when he is a kid. Enslaved, grown-up and now a gladiator, he travels to Pompeii where he will entertain the local festivities and meet an old foe.
Review: This Epic forbidden love story taking place at the same time as a catastrophic event reminds me of Titanic, the very first scenes are basic copies of Conan the Barbarian and at some point the story of Romeo & Juliet also comes to mind. And of course the shadow of Ridley Scott's Gladiator is never far. The main actors (Sutherland, Harris, Browning) are playing well. Kit Harington, the Jon Snow of Game of Thrones is a good cast, he is well-built enough to make a serious gladiator, quiet to be mysterious and cute to make the love story believable, but he should be careful of not getting entrapped into those kind of medieval roles. It is nice to see some aerial views of such lost Roman city (I appreciate especially since I recently travelled to Rome), which gives you a good feeling of the architecture and life at that time. The special effects for the climactic eruption of the Vesuvio are well-done and realistic, although I think I prefer the look of Mount Doom's eruption in The Return of the King, even if more fantasist. Not at all the worst Peplum I have seen made since Gladiator.
Rating: 6 /10