lamps

Several times during the film I thought how beautifully it was all sketched out and violently pushed towards the final encounter, but then, when suddenly the wonderful romantic climax arrives, I was soaking up all that love, positive mood and good filmmaking intentions so much that a rush of the opposite emotions would surely have caused me a deadly depression. A nice little story, suitable not only for people obsessed with music in any form, but also for die-hard idealists who never cease to be delighted by the original depiction of unconquerable love in Hollywood films. And last but not least, it’s more than suitable for the fans of the angelic Keri Russell, in whose eyes I drowned at least twelve times during the film... 85%

David O. Russell is a director with a style of his own and Three Kings is by far the most stylish of all his films. Formally very interesting and provocative in content, but quite true filmmaking that elevates American jingoism to the level of pop culture self-ironic entertainment. Russell has a very good handle on both the direction and the script, which may look like a feeble-minded orgasm over the American flag and freedom, but the biting irony works ingeniously, and in the final analysis I can't think of a better way to fit the words "God bless America" and "Americans are selfish, power-hungry bastards" into a single sentence. In addition to the premise, we can also praise the cinematography, the excellent cast and the great sound, which at times gave me goosebumps (where are the seventies..). The final impression is marred only by a few minor flaws in the script, which make it quite difficult for the film to fully break its serious face through the mask of a smug, indifferent moron. But still, God bless Hollywood :) 80%

A sequel to a comedy hit that lacks nothing that was typical of its predecessor, but at the same time has almost nothing that is typical of it. The genuinely funny scenes are few and far between, the popular mockery of action clichés is effective, but it's a weak brew compared to the first one, with new villains that are terribly stupid (poor Stormare), and only one of the original characters that retains his standards (the wisecracking Ice Cube). I expected much more from directors with such a record of originality. 60%

Marvel strikes back. Marvel. Previous superhero adventures have already carried strong hints of the irrepressible truth of life that humour gets you the furthest and is also the most engaging, but only this bunch of "the biggest idiots in the galaxy" fully demonstrated the enormous potential that a little self-parody can hold. One wisecrack follows another, the five idiots couldn't be more diverse and likeable, and the story, though one big cliché about a threat to the galaxy, is more than adequate for the film's main purpose, which is to entertain. It's a shame that some of the funny moments feel forced and therefore unconvincing, and the last ten minutes are an even bigger shame, where the main villain, so ruthless and serious up to that point, unexpectedly proves to be an idiot and becomes the butt of the most forced joke of the whole film. But what the hell, we're the fucking guardians of the galaxy, we're funny, we're cute, we're articulate, we listen to eighties music, and if we mess up with someone, we send them a dick pick and everything is OK again. So let's be glad we have them, and look forward to the sequel about Donald Duck, who has a bloodthirsty space dog escape from his lab. That will be a lot of fun :D 80%

Here you can see why the best Scorsese films are about three hours long. Sure, it's nonsense to compare the technical and financial resources of Czech cinema with what has always been available to the aforementioned master (not to mention the talent pool of actors!), but the difference is simply abysmal. The premise of The Story of a God-Father isn’t pointless, it could be the base of a story about the criminal activities of the main "hero" and then add supporting pillars embracing both the two different political regimes and the diligent work of police investigators, but the screenplay is a waste of time. It's not that the story doesn't flow easily, because it does, with furious interludes somewhere on the level of a detective TV show that are separated by several years in a flash, and before we can fully realise what a bastard Vedral actually is and what a powerful empire he has built, we are already watching the closing credits. And that's a shame, because Nikolaev knows his craft, and when he has an interesting script, he’s proven he can make something interesting with it. The Story of a God-Father also has a great cast, who unfortunately are imprisoned in their cookie-cutter characters with basically no room for development. That said, it’s reasonably above-par, at least it shows us what our country is like and what kind of people actually run the politics. 70%

Teenagers are pretty flowers. It's a well-known fact that sometime in the 1950s something happened in many liberal countries (many hackneyed and familiar factors) that caused the adolescent mind to become severely wilful and look up to intrepid western heroes rather than their parents. And it's also a well-known fact that Rebel Without a Cause is the pinnacle of that particular wave of cinema. The story is very basic, and looking at the script itself, anyone would be surprised that it has the label of cult classic, but appearances are deceiving. Everything is exactly where it should be, the rebellious teenagers are far from being just a bunch of obnoxious brats, and the main idea, so blatantly proclaimed in the distributors' blurbs, is portrayed so cleverly and impressively that the ageing that could be caused by the different generational habits is definitely not a risk (quite the opposite). And then there's James Dean – an actor with the character of Brad Pitt and the talents of Marlon Brando – whose untimely passing I only now highly regret. He’s the prime mover who was ahead of his time and secured the film the status it still holds today. Honour his memory. 85%

Lasse Hallström has the upper hand in one thing: even from a barren, unpleasant-looking piece of soil he can reap a harvest rich enough to feed the entire audience in one sitting without any major exceptions. While I was far from feeling stuffed after the feast, simply because everyone got only a small portion of originality and creative improvisation (it's hard to look for motifs we haven't found many times elsewhere), I have nothing to complain about in terms of quality and enjoyment. A pleasant, unassuming film that fully benefits from Hallström's narrative sensitivity, the great talent of the two legends (Redford in particular is extremely convincing and could have pulled off the entire story on his own) and the natural beauty of Jennifer Lopez, whose performance is pretty decent this time. Everything goes and ends according to a precise outline, but you know, the formal refinement of some films is difficult to describe, and this is exactly the case. 80%

Whereas the novel is maddeningly tedious in its incomprehensible penchant for detailing the interior of every room, the past of every minor character, and the main character's thought processes that do little to move the story in the right direction, the film runs extremely smoothly despite its scary runtime, sensitively choosing only the most important elements from the book and succeeding in evoking exactly the emotions and impressions that Styron, the author of the novel, was no doubt trying to evoke. The precise direction is not the only thing that plays a crucial role, there’s also the central trio of actors, who showcase their talents to the fullest, and Kevin Kline in particular deserved an Oscar for his portrayal of the contradictions and the hidden tricky nature of Nathan. Moreover, the scenes from Auschwitz are truly excellent both in content and form, and although they are secondary motifs, they leave by far the strongest impression. The only major weakness remains the slightly stilted theatrical dialogue – is it really necessary for the actors to look terribly enigmatic for five seconds first, and then slowly struggle to respond? But otherwise, this film (and the book too, no doubt) was the right choice. 85%

A harmless Hollywood game that cleverly channels its limited ambitions into the realm of imaginatively adventurous family films. Marginally in the style of Twister, with worse visuals and less catchy action, but with equally likeable heroes and more believable heroic scenes designed to entertain at home with the volume well to the right, but without (with only one exception perhaps) trying to make fools of the audience (as the equally old Volcano did). Considering the qualities, the rating here is really very misguided.. 80%

This stupid movie won my sympathy mainly because it doesn't take itself seriously under any circumstances, and because the amazing script is built in such a way that it basically mocks every other scene of all similar but serious science fiction crap where mad dishevelled scientists are in charge and the situation is saved by jobless but intrepid losers. Plus the right choice of actors, who manage to be funny and also great caricatures of the aforementioned archetypes. What I can’t understand is why, in this day and age of fancy CGI effects, the filmmakers weren’t able to produce a giant spider that looks like a spider. Had they done it, Big Ass Spider could have been a whole lot more fun. Unfortunately, all we have are the good intentions, the good humour and a bunch of annoyingly ridiculous visuals. 45%