Isherwood

Content-wise I have no problem with it - it is after all Havel's reflection on his own statesmanship. However, I miss the point of why it is so overly kitschy (the constant rides of Malíř's camera after half an hour are so maddening), and why the well-known actors are competing with each other to see who can overact more. Yes, the theatre of the absurd has its own laws, but in that case, it should stay in theaters because it has absolutely nothing to do with the film medium. Overall, Leaving is nothing but a film illustration of itself, which makes it perfectly self-centered, repulsive to the ordinary film viewer, and completely pointless. In terms of receiving Czech film awards, this is either another product of theatrical posthumous glorification, or the rest of Czech creations should never have seen the light of day.

Subjectively, the film fulfills everything you imagine in the phrase "The Three Musketeers directed by Paul Anderson," in a wholly positive sense. The trailers promised that it would be a blast. The inventive action combined with a superb cast, where everyone enjoys their role to the fullest, brings smiles of satisfaction to the audience’s faces. However, there are issues in the passages without any action, where perhaps it's not so much the gibberish dialogue that bothers us, but rather the fact that it has no pizzazz and lacks even the slightest bit of unpredictability. This means that you’ll simply know that Lerman will be a (likable) brat until the end and that the main three characters will be serving up catchphrases even if airships are falling from the sky. I'm not disappointed, I just think Anderson needs a tighter dramaturgical whip on him, and then he'll serve up one Death Race after another. :) 3 ½.

And they say that the French can only wave the white flag. There were moments when I was willing to give a full four stars to this purely male spectacle, which sells all the clichés, plot crutches, and predictable situations with such irresistible guilelessness. However, there are just too many moments when you put your hand on your heart and know that it's just a tad higher in intelligence than an episode of "Call of Duty." It is not the poor man’s version of The Way Back, but as a promising debut from a promising director, I have no objections. 3 ½, thumbs up, and if you're encumbered by genre, go for it.

There are lots of stunts and an absolute minimum of pranks (in fact, there’s no gag reflex apart from the "sweat suit" and the bungee outhouse). This is subjectively the best film in the series.

I am afraid that the length and content of the script did not exceed the title of the film, which promised a great adventure, and in combination with the talented creative team, ideal popcorn entertainment. The first approximately 15 minutes are divine, Craig is the ultimate tough guy, the canvas shirts smell of sweat, and everyone is carrying their guns low. Then Ford enters the scene, showcasing the most ridiculous toughness in the history of the Wild West, and everything is crowned by an absolutely asexual outfit à la Olivia Wilde's nightgown. The plot takes place in a total of 3 larger locations (with the majority of them being the wasteland of New Mexico), a larger amount of ILM fantasizing, so you can also search for it under a microscope, which raises the question: where did the 163 million from the budget go? From the beginning of the second third, it's perpetually echoing boredom, which this commercial failure fully deserves. The worst blockbuster from approximately 2-3 years ago.

There is no bias involved. People (and non-people) have the right to fall in love, do mating calls, and act like idiots. But why on earth make four films about it? Film No. 4.5 doesn't build on the insight and punch of Slade’s third film, and unfortunately, it's not even as hilariously goofy as the second. It’s closest to the first film in the series, an immature love tragedy that is appreciated particularly by emotionally immature adolescent girls, who can see themselves in the main character. Moreover, in such a plot-empty film I will ask myself several questions that will probably only be answered by an audience familiar with books. I don't like the saga for its "life attitude," I like it for the naive filmmaking stupidity. However, this is regularly the worst film in the series.

Please, no more battles between reality and dream. Tarsem Singh finally found a substance in which his unmistakable visuals do not become empty mannerisms, but instead perfectly serve an interesting (albeit simple) story in the theatrical vein of the big studio "sandal films" of the 1960s Hollywood big screen era. Paradoxically, the epic is conveyed through non-action acts, which allows the excellent actors to shine. Rourke’s villain is rightly being elevated to Olympus by everyone, whilst Cavill's charismatic bastard holds great promise not only for the new Superman but for similar types of roles in general. Beyond that, Freida Pinto's ass is just for show. This is another one of those occasional film pieces where I was put off going to the movie theater by lukewarm reviews and, despite the HD screening, I will regret it for a long time to come. 4 ½.

If there’s a place that has the most capable filmmakers who can create an original piece of work (everything else) out of an unoriginal subject (crime storylines), it is the BBC. Along with Luther and Sherlock, Wallander is a criminalist who gave everything to the job, and which took it from him wholeheartedly. The weariness of life from the incomprehensibility of this world seems to have fallen out of a Shakespearean work, so it is not surprising to see Kenneth Branagh in the lead role, who played his part perfectly. The perpetual stubble, the wrinkles on his forehead, the bags under his eyes, and the look of emptiness eventually become what makes Wallander utterly unadorned, securing the show’s place in the top ranks of genre filmmaking. Not to mention that it also features excellent cinematography and fantastic music.

There is a little bit of life in there, and it's fluffed up by the skillful screenwriter into a very effective dialogue whirlwind. Unfortunately, at the end, the film is hurt by exactly what it had been making fun of for more than two-thirds of its runtime, i.e., the tired clichés of all romantic films far and wide. However, thanks to the great actors, it reminded me that even men have a delicate sensitive soul that can be touched sometimes. :) [The bad thing is that the only significant impression I have the day after watching it is Mila Kunis’ absolutely luxurious character.]

Despite recycling all the good and bad from the past, this is the best film in the series - those little girls garner sympathy on all fronts. Yet the most interesting thing about the whole project is that the trailer is one big fake. This opens the door to an interesting theory.