Lima

Brilliant gags are interspersed with utterly lame and cheap ones. Unfortunately, the lame ones prevail. Film geeks will appreciate the many subtle references to famous movies of the past, but these alone are not enough to make me give this flick a higher rating.

It’s hard to believe that a behind-the-scenes look at the pornography industry of the 1970s could be so entertaining. P.T. Anderson's second great film, despite its lengthy three-hour runtime, makes such a holistic impression, without a single plot hiccup, that I bow to him. Inventive cinematography, irresistibly cynical humour and a perfect soundtrack make this film the ultimate experience. Credit must also go to Mark Wahlberg, who grabbed his first big acting opportunity by the balls. And Burt Reynolds, as a director trying to bring a little bit of art to porn, has probably never played a better role.

Probably my greatest cinema experience. I don't know what I could praise first, the cinematography, Liška's esoteric music, the acting (the incredible Kemr), the locations – everything is perfect. A film with a multi-layered plot that captivates with its visual beauty, which combined with the magical music creates an almost spiritual experience for the immersed viewer. Markéta Lazarová is a three-hour-long visual composition, a cinematic poem to which you will either open your heart and let yourself be carried away by the raw images of the harsh Middle Ages, or you will be bored. It will depend on how sensitive you are… And by the way, Markéta Lazarová has been a regular winner of all polls for the best Czech film of all time since its release.

A smartly written story that seems so believable that it could easily happen tomorrow. It perfectly fulfils the meaning of the term SCIENCE-fiction. I've read the book by Carl Sagan, but the movie is even better, strange as that it might sound. BTW, Johny_MH, you are wrong. Contact was not a flop, it made over 100 million in the US, here it fizzled out without much interest. I guess it’s because audiences are not very interested in sci-fi unless there’s cosmic crap and laser beams. I saw it in the cinema on a wide screen and it was my greatest cinematic experience of the year.

The clash of genius and mediocrity in a thrilling narrative whirlwind of emotions. Forman's film is sometimes accused of historical inaccuracies, but unfairly so. Amadeus is not a biopic, but a film about the clash of two different worlds – the world of gifted talent and the world of stubborn striving – and about the toll that an incredibly gifted man must pay to be "the one on top". Tom Hulce overacts quite a bit as Mozart, but I can't imagine any other actor in the role, and F.M. Abraham as Salieri is simply stunning, it's a shame he didn't get any other big roles. It's no wonder that sales of Mozart records increased by 50 percent in the U.S. after the film's premiere. Summary: Well deserved 8 Oscars and in my opinion, Forman’s best film.

It’s a simple equation, Professor Nash. Great Russell Crowe + great Jennifer Connelly + great script + wonderful music by Horner + decent direction by Howard = excellent film. Like I said, Professor Nash, it's simple math.

John McTiernan brilliantly portrays the fear of unknown danger. Even the scene of the massacre of the camp, although I'm not too keen on it, has its place. The viewer is surprised that this bunch of supermen who can easily dispatch an overwhelming number of mercenaries, have to bow down to a mysterious evil. And the ending, Arnold with the resources of a Stone Age hunter fighting a stronger predator, is a treat. Together with Conan the Barbarian, this is Arnold’s best movie.

Having recently watched Blade 2, I can't resist the comparison. While the sequel is mainly non-stop carnage, this one offers more: an interesting story, a strong atmosphere, a charismatic villain and moments that stick in the memory. For example, the opening dance party scene with the blood shower to the sounds of New Order is unforgettable. And a clear standout is the intriguing character of Blade's main antagonist. Stephen Dorff is so subtle that he looks like a ten-year-old girl could beat him up, but he commands such respect that it is clear he is not to be trifled with. Compared to the second one, there is less carnage, but as the famous saying goes, sometimes less is more.

Sam Raimi shows that what makes a film good is not an orgy of visual effects, but an interesting story. Tobey Maguire is perfect, he’s incredible, there is currently no one more suited to the role of Peter Parker and who could play it so well. I applaud Sam Raimi for sticking it to the film company. Kirsten Dunst is also alright, she’s no fragile beauty, but there is something to her, and she can act. My favourite Willem Dafoe was a bit of a disappointment, though, he plays naturally, but when Mr. Hyde awakens in him, his grins are rather laughable. But that's a small blemish on an otherwise excellent film.

Brigite Nielsen could be good as a dominatrix in an S&M club, as an actress she’s awful, but she’s fits perfectly into this crap. Whether it's the production design or the plot, Red Sonja is even worse than Conan the Destroyer (if that's even possible). This movie is a mockery to fans of Howard's novels and those who loved Conan the Barbarian (like me).