Marigold

Ugly and uglier, as one of my friends aptly proclaimed. And in the midst of the ugly, a group of more or less handsome humanoids are desperately trying to survive... Paul W. S. Anderson filmed a very grateful theme, but instead of an atmospheric mix of claustrophobic tension and dynamic action, as offered by the computer game of the same name, an initially thrilling, then extraordinarily predictable murder story with an emancipated heroine and a ridiculous story emerged from it all. Unfortunately, the heroine isn’t anywhere near as good as Ripley, and her survival journey is full of pretty nice action sequences, but she lacks suspense and the ability to grab the viewer’s attention. It’s too bad, because the introduction to the film is quite promising, but then, unfortunately, the tension disappears in the regiments of quite-visible monsters. Anderson just shot a B-movie with average A-movie effects. A pleasantly-killed hour and a half, but the film’s credit does not increase in any way with the ugly (Predators) and the uglier (Aliens), quite the opposite. AvP is just a parasite... 50%

Frears' attempt to crate a horror drama with a well-known story would not be remarkable whatsoever without Julie Roberts and John Malkovich in the lead roles. Both stars give excellent performances. Malkovich managed Dr. Jekyll's split personality without any problems - on the one hand, a reserved and introverted scientist, on the other a pervert and a bestial animal... Julia's Mary is surprisingly not remarkable in appearance, yet quiet and balanced goodness literally emanates from her. The combination of these two (three) people creates a rather watchable drama, in which Frears' contribution is limited to a few successful jump scares and a lot of fog. The atmosphere of the film barely works, which is a big scar on the beauty given the environment and the story. And the unfinished script will also not warm the viewer's soul ...

Ridley Scott resurrected a "historic" Hollywood feature film in all its splendor... in all its color, pomp, schematics, pathos, and shallowness. He created a work that appeals to the viewer's eye, but as soon as it resorted to thoughts, I felt like I was at a failed "Roman statehood for beginners" class (no one can convince me that Gladiator is not utter nonsense at its core). When something is "happening," Scott's film works brilliantly, but during the dialogues it slips into typical empty verbal nonsense, and if were not for the way in which the Crowe-Phoenix duo masterfully fulfilled their schemes, very little value would remain in Gladiator. Ridley Scott truly deceived me with his approach. His directing is routine, cold, and perhaps only in battle sequences we can talk about a unique approach (although a shaky handheld camera and "skipping" windows is not the master's invention). What I am missing in this film is some true spirit... people are constantly blabbering on about Rome, but unfortunately it remains a mere dream (a rendered background) for the quality of the film. That's why I prefer the ideas of William Wallace or Captain Nathan Algren. For me, their struggle has a greater charge than revenge for the death of loved ones, which has been played out a thousand times over. Ridley Scott simply played a pompous symphony based on old notes. It is the same as Hans Zimmer's music - it evokes desirable emotions, sounds powerful, heroic... That's what is expected of a big movie after all, isn't it? But I argue that what was expected of the film has already been portrayed better several times, although perhaps not as megalomaniacally.

A textbook example of a film that stands and falls with the main acting performance. Thanks to Daniel Day-Lewis, he's standing very firmly on both feet, not just his left foot. The story of Christy Brown's cerebral palsy, who became an acclaimed artist despite the initial underestimation of him, is not dramatic in a striking way; it is a small drama of one life that is surprisingly full of love rather than rejection. It is a story of the gradual telling of "what I mean" to those who love me, but with whom I cannot communicate well. And Daniel Day-Lewis is able to be completely natural and believable in those mundane and often minimalist episodes ... His perfect study of the movements and vocal expressions of a disabled person takes one’s breath away in and of itself, but the real acting performance is the art of expressing strong emotions through limited means. And it would be unfair of me to neglect mentioning his loving mother in the civil and humanly warm portrayal by Brenda Frecker. A beautiful film.

Michálek's work was a success... true, the title is a bit misleading, because with the exception of a few motifs and quotes it has very little in common with Deml's classic... of course, faith plays the lead role, but Polívka's pastor character is far from the troublemaking and inner skepticism of the book, and the whole film sheds light on his determination to help and the belief that true faith means love of man. The film flows somehow harmoniously, humbly, yet it has an extraordinary captivating power (also because of the musical accompaniment)... Above all, I should probably praise the excellent acting performances of all the main characters - the somewhat atypically calm and pensive role of Bolek Polívka, the excellent creation of Veronika Žilková and the traditionally cheerful Jiří Pech. Forgotten Light is quiet water that grinds the shores in such a way that after all these years I rank it among the best that has flowed through the bed of Czech post-revolutionary cinematography.

Hellboy is a comic book Accenture exactly to my taste. It has a devilishly dark and sometimes perversely disgusting atmosphere, humor as black as a freshly filled grave and a hero so sympathetically unsympathetic that there’s nothing quite like it. The main winner of Guillermo Del Toro's film is Ron Perlman, whose mask creation surpasses everything I have seen so far in the comic book remake genre. Hellboy is a hero with a soul who doesn't have to define himself to the world through tons of explosions and fights... it's a little big poem about the eternal feud between hell power and good human aspects, which turns into something almost poetically tender in that big red body. The scenes where Hellboy strokes a kitten with his stone hand or eats cookies on the roof in the company of a nine-year-old boy, debating love with him, are the highlights of the film. Del Toro was able to properly balance the ratio of action and conversation, thus joining the commendable trend of X-Men 2. It's amazing how a movie about a horned monster managed to impress me... but not only that. The film was able to entertain me with well-crafted action sequences (which, however, are rather only above average and old-world nowadays), and it suggested an atmosphere to me that balances on the edge of black comedy and horror. It too bad that in the end the film loses some of the escalation and directorial cleverness with which it is conducted (with a slight exaggeration). Hellboy's world is very sympathetic and understandable to me, which is why I hope that "Red" does not end his brash journey with this film. It would be a pity if this muddy hellish relic doesn’t get a successor...

A film of truly barbaric qualities. Terrible acting, primitive directing, trivial story, excellent musical accompaniment... All of this brings together a completely unique atmosphere, which goes with the subject like a sword in the chest. What is the use if the fights are built more like a fitness demonstration of Arnie's muscles, what is the point if only the demonic James Earl Jones’s performance is the only decent one...? Milius's Conan remains a fearless war cult among fantasy films because, despite all the objectively visible flaws (and there are as many of them as there are naked women in Thul's harem), it retains a special pagan charm. Which doesn't change the fact that the film is actually quite lousy...

Endless is the influx of variations on the theme "ugly mutated animals tyrannize the peaceful (American) countryside". Mr. H., yeah, he knew how to get it going, even though his bird hurricanes are more something to laugh at given the level of today's tricks. But paradoxically, he put innocent birds in the main role, not creatures that humanity has long feared. So: I like snakes, I know a little bit about them (enough to know that this film is BULSHIT), I don't like clichés (and this film is blinded by them), and I don't like bad actors with flashy makeup (and this film is full of them). You don’t often see something as perfectly predictable as this. It’s not only that the point of the scenes can be predicted, but even their order. It's is better than a rattlesnake in a toilet bowl, but that’s only a consolation for the desperate. One star for a few exciting spots.

Kolya is a good film because it bears all the hallmarks of Svěrák's classic screenwriting style - especially light dialogues full of brilliant jokes. It is also a good film because all the actors give great performances, starting with the screenwriter himself (surprisingly, one actually believes in his bastard: o)), and ending with the cute fat boy Chalimon. The film is not that good primarily because we are beginning to see Jan Svěrák's tendency to be shallow and to carry out a frontal attack on the viewer. He knows what works and uses it shamelessly, whilst also maintaining a tolerable level. Unfortunately, unlike The Elementary School, Kolya is more of a plan to win an Oscar than a strong and distinctive film. The film lacks the natural earthiness (what do you think about that, Mr. Kovář? :-)) and the suggestive evocation of the atmosphere that characterizes great works of authorship. Humor holds it above the water, but also the fact that the story (willingly or unwillingly) always gets to a person.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is thus far the most successful and therefore the most influential Moore film. It is completely subordinate to it. It was created to appeal to the average American consumer. That is why it does not repeat the sophisticated approach of its predecessor, and unlike Bowling for Columbine, it is not a slowly composing mosaic of facts and stories that results in a very impressive idea. It is an illustration of an initial thesis. Demagogy and propaganda. Of course, it is granted. It is a counterweight to the official media presentation of politician of George W. Bush, and that is why it also uses official propaganda weapons to a large extent. In short, a barrage of facts and a one-sided view. Captivating stories. Tears. Emotions. Pathos. First you get a generalized idea, subsequently illustrated with a properly captivating and emotionally blackmailing example. Fortunately, Michael Moore is still here. A man with humor and a Jaroslav Hašek feel for the absurdity of a situation that should not be pointed out, but which should be brought to fruition. A man with a feel for the grotesque effect of music, gloss, but also an uncommented shot. A troublemaker and an anarchist who may be at an extreme counterpart, but is still a necessary glossator (and manipulator) for today's America. Fortunately, we have George W. Bush, an idiot and born clown, exactly corresponding to Švejk's statement: I really like it when people make stupid and embarrassing mistakes. His stupid and embarrassing mistakes are unfortunately funny on the one hand, but dangerous on the other, because in their principles they are strikingly close to the concept of fear and the eternal war of Orwell's 1984... Fahrenheit 9/11 is certainly not as good of a documentary as Bowling For Columbine, primarily because it lacks its complexity and intelligence. It is simply a persistent effort to reveal black spots in history documents. A necessary effort.