Malarkey

Jackie Chan wanted to film it honestly and as convincingly as possible, as it’s about a rather crucial moment in the history of China. But the result is so bland and boring that it won’t convince even the world’s worst dictator of how China should write its history. It looks nice, but the action is slow, and the dialogs won’t mean much to the Czech audience. I wanted a film made in an interesting way that would not be boring and that’s exactly what I didn’t get. Seen based on the Challenge Tour 2015.

I think that Sam Mendes was aiming for the Oscar here, I don’t know why there aren’t more films about the First World War, but it’s probably because most of the time the soldiers were battling boredom in the trenches rather thanfighting for territory on the ground. Sam Mendes, however, went a bit too far here, replacing filmmaking with an attempt at absolute realism. The illusion that everything is a single long shot makes the scenes look remarkably surreal. It all starts with the crash of a German plane into a dilapidated barn, continues with ruins of the town illuminated by flares and ends directly in the trenches, a few seconds before running into the turmoil ofbattle. I was bating my breath, fascinated by the fabricated scenes, and enjoyed one of the best war films made in the last few years. The trio of good old British actors (Firth, Cumberbatch, Strong) is the icing on the cake, which will draw you into the depicted events of the war and remind you that it is “only” a film.

It’s fascinating how well Thomas Jane rehearsed his role of a total American redneck, including the melodious but barely comprehensible dialect. Really fascinating. Unfortunately, even though it’s based on a short story by Stephen King, which guarantees the quality of the topic, its execution was too gloomy and horribly slow. Given that the film lasts 101 minutes, nothing much happens in it, apart from one explicit scene. Everything else rises and falls with the atmosphere of 1922, and I must admit that’s very authentic. Undoubtedly an interesting piece, which has its pros and cons but is definitely worth watching. Moreover, you can’t miss several references to the legendary The Shining. For Stephen King’s fans, this film is definitely a must-see.

The Estonian-Finnish cinematography friends once again joined their forces to tell the strong story of the Estonian people on whose territory the Germans and the Russians formed a corridor across Eastern Europe. And personally, I must say that it was some pretty interesting storytelling. You see, I’d had no idea about what was happening in Estonia during World War Two and this movie gave me a clear explanation. It is divided into two parts. One of them is German and the other one is Russian. They are both disgusting and they turn people into killing machines. And Estonia wasn’t even what the war was about, either. Technically, the film was well-made, it only took me a while to get used to the action sequences, which have been shot in a rather aesthetic, but also quite strange manner. On the other hand, this is not the first war movie from Finland/Estonia, so once again we can expect not only the military equipment but also the plot to be of a high quality. Especially the story, which is trying to be as close to reality as possible. Once again at the expense of leaving less space for emotions, but that’s something that I got used to when it comes to their war movies.

The Russo-Finnish war really caught my attention. Therefore, immediately after watching the film Beyond the Front Line, I watched its stand-alone sequel, which is supposed to tell the story of the final and most important battle of the Finns with the Soviets. I have to say that from the technical aspect the creators again did an outstanding job. They shot down about a thousand tons of forests and with that created the ultimate atmosphere of war. On the other hand, the technologies are redeemed by a basically accurate history told in a documentary way, which emphasizes the individual moments, but completely omits the stories of the characters themselves. If I considered the previous instalment to be quite impersonal, then this one is completely beyond the line. It is rather a filmed documentary than a regular movie. Still, it took an enormous amount of work. Hats off to the Finns for the way they defended their country. Defense like this was rarely seen in the Second World War. Especially when you remember how the individual countries at the beginning of the war in the Blitzkrieg lost after less than a month.

A story from the end of the Second World War told with a love of the old, which has a catharsis so strong that when it comes to the Hungarian cinematography, I will remember it for a very long time.

I would say that this movie shows which director is a genius and which is a routiner. While Stanley Kubrick has made a groundbreaking and legendary sci-fi in the late 1960s, almost 20 years later a routiner Peter Hyams made a solid but (compared to Kubrick) a very routine movie. However, although it is routine it is still a sci-fi classic.

I didn’t actually find much comedic elements in this movie. Rather, I found moments that compared the 1970s with the present and came across as very absurd. Which is more or less obvious. The comparison of the then landline phone with modern mobiles will always be absurd. Nevertheless, the movie is built on situations like these, and it’s actually its essence. It presents life stories of different women of that time and even though the movie is boring at times, the finale makes up for it very nicely. An inconspicuous, stylish movie, which contains plenty of good ideas and a solidly executed ending.

Finns and their special way of telling the story of 21 Ways to Ruin a Marriage. The story was nonexistent. I wasn’t having any fun at all and most importantly, I didn’t even get to laugh. The only thing that was salvaging it was the lead actress and the interesting Finnish language. And also, the polar day setting and the final scene that said a lot about the movie as a whole.

At first I wondered why someone had this story filmed twice, in addition twice in the same year ... well, and then I read the director’s name and it became clear to me – Paul Greengrass. A theme literally made for him. In addition, I would perhaps rate the film even better if I did not see the original one, which was sufficiently shocking and, especially in filmmaking respect, absolutely excellent. But I thought I would try this one, too, out of my respect for this director. And I have a few complaints. Especially about the attack itself, which was done very sloppily. But as it forms only about a third of the film, the other two thirds are able to properly engage the viewer. It milks the audience’s emotions shamelessly, as it shows not only Breivik’s thought processes, which shock you every time he appears on the screen, but alsothe youths who survived his rampage, but didn’t live through it unscathed. It’s definitely some food for thought, but the best thing is the ending, where the victims’ fates are closed by a court proceedings. It could have been about a half an hour shorter, but on the other hand it’s a classic Greengrass, so everything, including the camera, feels so natural that you will feel like the happenings depicted affected you personally.