D.Moore

"Hi, I'm Dory and I'm suffering from short-term memory loss." Like Toy Story 2, Finding Dory is a completely natural sequel that has stuck to the bar of the first film, knows the measure and does not exaggerate anything, has a bunch of ideas... It's just magical. Plus, Hank the octopus and Gerald the sea lion are such fantastic new characters!

Looking for my review of Nemo. I gave it five stars once and now they're gone. But what the hell, such a great cartoon deserves me giving it full marks several times. It's classic Pixar fun for all, with a balanced combination of humor, action and emotion, an imaginative story and of course (still) excellent animation. Moreover, it is one of those films that I always watch with a perfect Czech dubbing, despite the more than tempting original version.

It's a pity that this short doesn't actually end in any way. I have no problem with the open ending, I like those, but rather I'd like to know more about the origin of the (brilliant) monster. The make-up and all those bloody practical effects are, on the other hand, amazing.

Quite naive and, unfortunately, an outdated contribution to the biography and filmography of the great C. E. As a kid, I loved FireFox, and I remembered it today and found that it was only worth seeing because of the reliable Clint Eastwood (the whole part in the Moscow subway is great) and the still great special effects from the ILM workshop that can be seen in the final half hour. I can't say I didn't have fun, but it just wasn't exceptional fun.

Magically melancholic mood, beautiful shots, extraordinary story of extraordinary people... A beautiful film in every aspect.

An attempt at a Carpenter horror film, but the most Carpenter things about it are the music (which John Carpenter actually composed in part) and the list of carpenters in the end credits (which is kind of my attempt at a joke). The source material is one of those King books I read some twenty years ago and remember only the basic plot, but even so it is clear to me that the filmmakers misunderstood it and turned it into a bland, almost second-rate made-for-TV movie with uninteresting characters, which was not saved even by the cast led by the horribly miscast Zac Efron. The more seriously the film takes itself, the more ridiculous it gets. I'm sorry, but this is one of the worst King adaptations I've seen so far.

Almost as much of destruction of a classic book as The Three Musketeers with Charlie Sheen (not to mention the more recent Musketeers). Except that at least First Knight has the badass Sean Connery, who you just can't help but root for, and music by Jerry Goldsmith. Richard Gere delivers perhaps the most excruciating performance of his career and there is also a lack of humor, which is especially puzzling when you see the director's name (not that I was expecting Frank Drebin in knight's armor, but still).

I haven't seen Whiplash, I didn't enjoy the cheesy La La Land, but I'm unreservedly excited about First Man. Captivating aerial scenes of all kinds (you feel like you are sitting there with him/them) interspersed with no less dramatic scenes from that “ordinary family life," Ryan Gosling once again acts well and I believed his character. At the same time, the script is not a classic biographical affair which, when watching it, the viewer just in spirit ticks off items and gets to the limit of kitsch only in the end (the bracelet), but it balances it, doesn't fall, and doesn’t hurt itself. I also enjoy being able to praise the music once again. Justin Hurwitz is playing the theremin, accompanying the scene with Gemini with a waltz and peaking as dramatically as if Hans Zimmer had collaborated with Philip Glass. I'm very much looking forward to the soundtrack.

Yes, yes, the comedic exaggeration of the first half of the film is really lacking in the second half. Probably my biggest regret, however, was that the gentlemen (and the lady) didn't take their sidekick Gibbs with them into the "rocket", and by the end of the film I didn't hear a single cry of "Giiiiiiibbs" from the professor. The atmosphere of the entire film is pleasantly naive, and Victorian England, science fiction and H.G. Wells is known to be a good combination, but it’s just a real shame about what's happening on the Moon. It's nicely made, hats off, but it's sooooo confusing after the first encounter with the Moon’s inhabitants.

Sylvester Stallone knows how to act (throw away your preconceptions and look at the great Oscar) and that's why, back in 1978, he decided to prove that Rocky's success was no accident and that his talent had a lot to do with it. Surprisingly, F.I.S.T. turned out well, despite how long it takes the main character to punch someone, and the fact that he doesn't show a single bit of muscle except for the facial ones. Stallone is good to watch for the first hour, he goes after what he wants, he’s sympathetically simple and impossible not to root for. Moreover, director Jewison was able to evoke the atmosphere of the time and he filmed both battles between the unionists and the factory workers very evocatively. The big problem, however, came with a leap forward of almost thirty years. America has changed, houses have changed, cars have changed, music has changed... But Stallone's character essentially didn't. I don't understand why the make-up artists didn't help him more, because a man in his thirties can't play a man in his fifties well enough with just dyed grey hair, a pout and a different posture, no matter how hard he tries. Masks, even just artificial wrinkles, are not a trick, they are meant to help the actors (for example, De Niro's fascinating transformation in Once Upon a Time in America, or in fact any role played by Peter Sellers) perform better and the audience to have a memorable experience, which F.I.S.T. could have easily been. Three and a half.