D.Moore

Who do you like more? A charmingly cold killer, a psychopathic blackmailer in love or desperately boring, but at least a slightly (though not entirely) good attorney? If you think you're not going to lean to either side and you are going to watch Footsteps in the Fog impartially, you're mistaken. It's one of those artfully written stories that play with the viewer and royally entertains. Unexpected twists, Hitchcock suspense and perfect performances by Stewart Granger and Jean Simmons... It's actually a romantic film, but there is quite a lot of murder in it.

I was curious to see what this film was going to be like, but I really didn't expect to get this excited. This very original approach to the zombie genre is a welcome change, both Arnold and Abigail Breslin act great, the intimate gloomy atmosphere is quite palpable, everything feels entirely authentic. I'm sure I won't forget a number of scenes from Maggie and that I'll be watching it again soon.

I love that Shane Black wrote and filmed it his way and didn't merely need to slavishly reference the original, like Predators did last time. He simply made a typical comedy full of verbal wars and unexpected situations (in which once again a child in danger plays an important role, but who is far from defenseless), and although he was mostly interested in entertainment, there is also a decent amount of tension. Even though I have a few reservations, mainly about the beginning and the end, I'm still very satisfied. I was also pleased by the unknown but sympathetic actors (Black's screenwriter helped them a lot by ensuring the viewer would like them, and their deaths are therefore seriously impressive), and I have to praise Henry Jackman, too, who played with Silvestri's music in a much more original way than John Debney did last time.

An unobtrusive and unknown short based on a simple but great idea. Jiří Wimmer is scared and shaking with fear from a TV reading, and it's hilarious funny. And then he realizes that a sinister character from the screen speaks directly to him, follows him with his eyes, and that's still not all. It's perfectly acted and especially filmed, the atmosphere is really stiff and the point perfect. If Kafka had had a sense of humor, maybe he'd have written something like this.

I think this is the perfect Chaplin slapstick that is purely about fun, nothing more, and so it’s one great gag after another until it's over. As a waiter, Chaplin is excellent, whether he calculates spending by the soiling of the guest or fighting with his colleagues and the boss, fleeing back and forth. But then he grabs his skates during the lunch break... And the real concert begins. What he does imply needs to be seen. Ideally several times for as long as your diaphragm keeps working.

Excellent biography of an excellent musical group that Clint Eastwood recorded as... A gangster film? Yes, that's right. Great acting performances, typically precise “uninvolved observer" directing with a few sensational ideas (driving by the windows of the record label), a plausible retro vibe with lightly highlighted colors, and then music, music and music. During the scene during the closing credits, I regretted that the whole film wasn't a musical, because the relaxing five minutes of dancing was more natural and impressive than all of La La Land.

From an ancient school screening, I remembered Hair dimly as a good musical with good songs and a number of scenes that made us feel different things as teenagers. But today I finally saw Hair again, in the movie theatre, and I had to update my opinion. It is a great musical with genius songs and scenes directed in such a world-class way that one must once again admire the talent of Milos Forman. Whether it's the carefree odes sung and danced around parks, a hallucinogenic wedding scene or the finale with a troop-eating plane, it’s all amazing. It also of course concerns the acting and singing performances, and the lightness with which humor alternates with chills is also admirable. The world is about friendship, love, and freedom, says this film. Or at least that should be the point. And that applies all the time. Or at least it should.

A forgettable, average B-movie. It needed a director like Stephen Sommers or Joe Johnston, who would make such deliberately silly subject matter into a better spectacle. John Turtletaub is not very good.____P.S. The Czech subtitles by Kateřina Hámova are once again horrendous. No, “squid" really isn't “octopus," and there were plenty of other mistakes as well.

I was kind of sorry at first that Pixar didn't take advantage of the 14-year hiatus to let the protagonist grow old, and that it was starting exactly from the point where it left off last time. But in the end, I am very surprised at how successful it was. I also like the fact that the second film doesn't stick to that infamous curse of sequels and does not need to be bigger in every way at all costs. In fact, it’s a lot like the first film and is almost as good. Almost. I was tremendously entertained by the whole sitcom part with Bob in the household, because the sight of a clueless superhero is fantastic, and Jack Jack is great as the main source of entertainment. Unfortunately, this entertainment kind of exceeded the (tolerable) bad guy plot, from which I will remember the perfect animation and that group of very strange heroes.

Tom Cruise is an atrocious fool, Henry Cavill an atrocious all-star. The sixth Mission: Impossible is more of an action than espionage film (unlike the previous film), but it's immensely honest and perfectly riveting. In addition to superbly shot fights, shootouts, stakeouts and chases, there are also some completely non-action, but admirably thrilling and impressive scenes (the Parisian policewoman above all) and, so I don’t forget, I give the creators bonus points for the partially confusing teaser that made the film surprise me more than once.