Marigold

Disappointment that is on a level higher than the final part of the trilogy. Even Jackman's unquestionable charisma cannot hold together a story which, after a fairly promising start, burst into disjointed fights, silly dialogues and terribly predictable twists. The unique magic of the X-Men series has somehow disappeared, and I'm really wondering what puts Wolverine above all other soulless comic book fight films. Instead of the neglected question of the mutants vs. people relationship, Hood's film was supposed to feature a troubled hero, but only those shiny claws and an angry expression really remain of Logan. Paradoxically, the biographical film contributes the least to the image of the Wolverine of all the films, and while it does benefit from the charisma of previous films, the new knowledge about the hero's past is very weak, contrived, exaggerated and sometimes almost embarrassingly calculated. The image concept has nothing with which to captivate, the music is ok, the actors ok, but the added value that the viewer is used to with Singer is simply missing here. Unfortunately, what I suspected with regard to X-Men: The Last Stand has been confirmed. Without Singer, this universe lacks any distinctive charm. [50%]

Řehořek's talent is indisputable, and even though he sometimes seems like a young man who is enthusiastic about the inexhaustible possibilities of a large format, he is able to guard his work without seeming too ostentatious and ornamental. Changes has a pleasant rhythm, which is indicated by the leitmotif of the flying cloud, as well as a visual stylization that does not blind the eye with unnecessary intent. I really like the combination of visuals and soundtracks, which often characterize the characters better than they can on their own. This is, after all, a cardinal problem of Changes - the author gives the characters more than they give back. Sometimes the script pleasantly surprises with a well-written dialogue, but at other times it focuses too much on the pursuit of civil diction. The same is true for the characters. Sometimes we see emotions from them, sometimes they want a lot, but there is no result therefrom. In the end, the attempt to tangle the seemingly disparate narrative lines according to the modern recipe "everything is connected to everything and everything is affected" is a bit too self-serving and does not result in more than mere chance. Despite this, Changes is a film on a contemporary topic that does not hurt the eardrums and does not bring tears of embarrassment to the eyes. The film is able to arouse feelings with a great deal of sincerity and the author's skill, even if they cannot completely disguise a certain awkwardness and internal inconsistency. However, my final impressions are mostly positive and full of hope.

Thank you, Mr. Abrams. I left the cinema trembling, as if something forgotten from my childhood had awakened in me - probably the hours and hours spent reading the books and watching all possible versions of the series. For a man who has nothing to do with the saga, Abrams has shown an admirable level of empathy and the ability to revive exactly the parts that Star Trek needs. The chemistry of the characters, the humor, the tension and all those spectacular journeys through time – cosmic poetry, in which there is a bit of children's naivety, of science, and a good portion of adventure. It's all coated in the flawless visual tinsel that's so fashionable today. It all works well together, it looks great, and for the future, it promises that Star Trek may be entering a golden age. The sweet exclusivity will probably not be there anymore, but to hell with it, the shiny tinsel looks good, action alternates with the action, the characters develop beautifully and the story is exactly as corny as it should be. I personally found everything in this film that had made me a fan of James T. Kirk and his crew. And I think that anyone who doesn't mind proper sci-fi lemonade will find something to like. Star Trek is cool, and as much as I don't like cool stuff, I fell in love with this one.

A famously filmed and intellectually extraordinary serious drama which, from my point of view, sometimes falls a little short due to the excessive effort to ask all the questions at once. The bold solution of letting the viewer penetrate the very source of terrorism and listen to the opinions of the "bad guys" in the conventional sense is excellent, but it is unable to avoid the penetration of Bolshevik phrases into the very thought structure of the film. It is not as annoying as Soderbergh's Che, and the people from Uli Edel's film remain mostly people, not myths from red posters. Given the breadth of the issues raised by The Baader Meinhof Complex, occasional washing and confusion is to be expected. In the end, the feeling of a really successful and provocative film prevails, which tries to also see things from the other side - the RAF. And to question whether everything bad in this world can be blamed only on those crazy activist minds... I give it a weaker five stars. P.S. The main melody is really ballbusting, I haven't heard anything this good in a long time.

It's not bad, provided you either know something about the issue, or if you are soon going go and find out. Otherwise, it has the typical features of Hollywood varnish, which tries to see things in their spectacular luster rather than in serious contexts. However, given the budget and time options, it is a pleasantly dynamic and fun spectacle.

My impressions are somewhat contradictory: on the one hand, the wonderful idea of expanding the expressionist image of a monster, which reflects the essential dilemmas of the Weimar Republic, a bizarre intermediate stage between the creature and the savior. However, Ševčík offers only very schematic answers to all the burning questions in a selected visual, great composition, in the play of light and darkness. He reduces the characters to the level of symbols of "good", "evil", "innocence", and does not offer complex psychological portraits. In the end, however, the viewer is not much wiser than at the beginning. Yes, a well-versed fan of German expressionism will be delighted, and it also warms the soul that a Czech film is finally coming to movie theatres that does not go with the flow and evokes controversial impressions. Personally, I would like to watch Normal: The Düsseldorf Rippe in detail once more time to see if my constructions have support in what was filmed. Part of me feels that Ševčík made a lot of promises, served a full tray of treats for "literate" viewers, but under the selected audio-visual, this is far from a film that can satisfactorily answer its own questions. However, I emphasize: we have not had such a stimulating Czech film for years. Hosanna.

Boring? Maybe for lovers of mafia fairy tales. If you like the raw and unadorned style and you are interested in modern Godfathers, then you can hope for a similar emotional impact to that which Gomorrah had on me. I'm not going full out only because the film is really too long and Garrone (no matter how great of a job he did!) just can’t keep up. In my opinion, Gomorrah is one of the most impressive films in recent months. But I highly recommend that you at least read about what you are going to see. There were quite a few stray souls who came to see the next The Departed in the movie theatre.

High quality, especially where the film adheres to the documentary level and does not seek to achieve generalizing caricatures of humorless xenophobes. The question of whether a stylized "based on true events" story will work is satisfactorily answered by the conclusion – and the answer is YES. This is despite the sometimes cumbersome dialogues that try to analyze the Roma problem from different angles, and despite the screenplay, which sometimes lacks gradation and a clearer direction. As in The Brats, Tyc managed to create a rather plastic and non-offensive film (if I close my eyes and omit the somewhat exaggerated hints of the "conspiracy" of the powerful). It is too bad that El Paso does not have the obvious power of Straw dramas and has to reach for the scheme all too often. The relatively good feeling from the screening is spoiled for me over time by memories of moments that were rather false instead of having the intended authenticity.

Great theater, but only an above-average film. Shanley wrote the perfect screenplay and found excellent collaborators, but Doubt only truly works as an acting concert and a duel between two opposing views of faith. As a film, it offers excellent music by Howard Shore, Deakins' colorful camera, but also a strangely distant director. Shanley tried to enrich the theatrical potential with visual means, but they have awkward theatricality and inelegance, which slows down rather than strengthens tension. This is unfortunate, because the acting and the final question that remains hanging in the air could easily have formed part of an exceptional film. It does not, although Doubt is undoubtedly a very good effort.

A boxing match between a political champion and a loser from an entertainment slum, 4 rounds at a dazzling pace and nerve-wracking gradation. Ron Howard undoubtedly trimmed the political issue, adjusted both characters and put them into the ever popular scheme "David vs. Goliath KO in the last round"... However, I am honestly searching in vain, trying to find out when I enjoyed it more and when, behind the brilliantly elaborated scheme, I found such an exciting background and point that goes beyond mere entertainment. The Frost/Nixon duel reveals the part of politics one has to follow breathlessly, media fireworks, a powerful story and a remarkable message about the power of the television screen. I don't think this film will surpass the other Oscar favorite, in my opinion.