DaViD´82

That manicurist is a bit weird, and it’s not just because she puts six sugars in her coffee. A hauntingly filmed intimate unsettling borefest; which is not necessarily a negative in this case.

Finally someone understands that nostalgia for action movie style from the eighties with their wall-poster heroes can today function only as tongue in cheek. And precisely because it doesn’t take itself seriously at all, unlike part one, gives this some real oomph. On top of that, the action is easy to follow, not that modern, epileptic style of editing, like in part one. So this time I would definitely consider buying an old, second hand VHS of this with its consecutive monotonous Czech dubbing.

Somewhat melodramatic, but definitely some damn good cinema, especially during the crucial part on the raft. The directors’ duo Rønning/Sandberg is getting progressively better with each movie, and the brilliant cast led by Ryan Gosling’s identical twin in the role of Thor “can’t see the wood for the trees" Heyerdahl. We definitely need a sequel about Eduard Ingriš; and right away.

Gilda (aka Leslie) and Katie (aka Penny) are horrifying and a big thank you for the uncompromising rewrite. The rest is obviously pretty unpolished and half-assed, but the main cornerstones that constitute what we know as The Big Bang Theory today are clearly visible, no question about it. Of course, in the end it’s more interesting and good for comparison rather than actually good and independently functional, but what can you expect from a draft, unaired version, right?

An unromanticised and raw version of the conquest (both in the field and in academia) of Africa's last great question mark: the source of the Nile. It’s a pity that the authors did not treat the central duo in the same way, who after all passed the "audience sympathy" test. But this does not affect the quality of the film in the slightest.

If the creators’ goal was to fix Dredd’s movie reputation after the ’95 fiasco, then… It went from bad to worse to the very worst. At least they stayed true to the original. But what good does that do when not even the greatest film talent would be able to create a movie (not to mention a good one) out of a display of unashamed gore and ultra-annoying ultra-slow-motion shots. Let alone a predictable bore like Travis.

An attempt at a new-age fairy tale, where the role of magic is substituted by music in all of its forms. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with that except for one detail; the (tacky) heart-warmingness is too forced, not at all natural. The director aggressively pushes this left and right, in every second of the footage, in every frame of the film. It’s like she’s holding a knife to your neck and saying you’d better feel moved, or else!... Well, this achieves the exact opposite effect and instead of feeling moved, I felt genuine hatred. So in the end, it worked exactly as it should. It provoked an emotional response in me (even though a different one than planned), which is a rare occurrence.

There is power in simplicity. And here it stems from, among other things, the fact that, despite the initial impression, the crime story is an afterthought.

The Hobbit does not lend itself to forced conversion into a regular fantasy saga. It is, and always has been, a fairy-tale with a moral, and has never had greater ambitions than to be “just" a good bedtime story. And it is precisely out of this conflict between a fairy tale and an epic fantasy, which is not supported in the narrative structure of the original (or in the appendices), that friction points arise which Jackson does not always manage to smooth over. One moment it's a lovely quest exploring natural beauty, a scene later a fetish fantasy à la Warhammer full of slow-motion shots of muscled dwarves cutting off limbs like on an assembly line, followed by a return to a non-conflict idyll about misadventures on the road. You could probably read the initial six chapters that the first Hobbit movie works with faster than the nearly three hours that Peter devotes to them on the screen. Moreover, PJ opted for an unfortunate stylization to an unacknowledged remake of the Fellowship of the Ring; as if he'd stretched out the Fellowship from one movie into three and interspersed it with great CGI action escapades like in his King Kong. But the best scenes here are the simple ones based purely on actors (led by riddles in the dark). You can clearly see here which of the scenes would end mercilessly on the cutting room floor in the original two-part concept. However, none of the above means that it is not a good movie anyway. Because it is good cinema, plain and simple. Nor is my satisfaction spoiled by the fact that someone else should have taken over from Jackson; perhaps Cuarón or del Torro, because this cut was created for fans and not for a regular audience. However, it is probably clear from the score I gave it which category I belong in, despite all these criticisms; I've been enjoying it since the second screening with a stupid smile on my face, no matter what reason says… The extended version performs a similar function as it did with The Fellowship; that is, an interesting and pleasant expansion. But you won't miss anything if you don't see it. With one exception (a completely reworked Rivendale; especially the night passage), it contains nothing fundamental. It's definitely not an editorial revision that changes one's experience like the longer version did with The Two Towers. A very technical P.S.: HFR 48 fps really is precisely as (r)evolutionary as claimed and is partly changing the way film media is perceived. However, due to its clarity, sharpness, fluency and detail, it is completely unforgiving of filmmaking mistakes/effects and is therefore not suited to films where props, sets and masks play first fiddle. It spoils the cinematic illusion because you can clearly see "where the glue for the dwarf's beard ends" and that "boulder is a painted prop". It also does not work with dubbing since in a normal picture, the dubbing artist can speak to the movement of the actor's mouth, but here every little lip movement of every word can be seen, and it will no longer pass unnoticed -- a rather bizarre impression arises when the visual of the mouth clearly says something different than what you hear. Of course, HFR as such is life-like, immediate, but a bit like being at theatre. However, in non-studio shots of (not only) landscapes or purely CGI moments, HFR is breathtaking, and, for example, for nature documentaries, sports broadcasts, or CGI spectacles, holds indisputable promise for the future. There are undeniable positives, but there are negatives as well, and The Hobbit allows you to feel both fully.

Rather less well-known and more toned down pieces. Which certainly isn’t a criticism. But the awful visuals that try to create the atmosphere using blurred tourist brochure-type shots (with texts!) of the beauties of Venice - a sure-fire way of destroying the effect - and this is criticism. And of course you can watch the concert with your eyes closed (and it’s quite pleasant really), but then you might as well be playing a cd.