NinadeL

Once upon a time, in late 1941, the first "Wonder Woman" story written by William Moulton Marston was published. A lot of time has passed since then. Personally, I love the whole Amazon Princess series and the Lynda Carter series, and I'll take my pick from the animation too. I've just been slightly nervous since the new Man of Steel about how this thing would turn out. Turns out it was excellent. Last year, Gal Gadot made her debut as Wonder Woman in Dawn of Justice and attracted a lot of attention. Today, we have a film that we’ve been waiting for for 75 years, which manages to combine a long line of views on Wonder Woman’s origin and her sidekicks, incorporate it all into the new DCU, and treat traditional readers and new ones alike to a slice of their favorite concept. It works. Although it is true that purely for the film, WW2 was traded for WW1, the one that was supposed to end all future wars. Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman is a wonderful experience and IMAX is the perfect place to experience it.

The Allen movies about relationships are all the same. There are heaps of intellectual references everywhere, sharp humor, multiple layers of emotion, your favorite actors, and your favorite topics for conversation and reflection. I often feel like these are not individual films, but episodes of "Woody and his views on women." You have to be in the right mood and have insight into your own relationships in order to be able to follow it. In addition, it features all the "funny" formal tweaks and speeches to the viewer and once again the endless pile of references to Bergman, Fellini, McLuhan, Chaplin, Groucho Marx, Freud, Visconti/Mann... Commenting on these films is more like a sport, and the one who scores the most points is the one who made a mark every time he was supposed to laugh, be moved, or say "aha, I got that too." Menstruation in conversation is also the absolute pinnacle. Every time. Always.

I am delighted that Kristina was indeed able to complete the film and is now experiencing the pleasure of its screening. Roots in Ego is a dream project that proves that whatever goals a person sets for themselves, they can meet fulfil them in the future. But in order for such a dream to be fully free, its financing must also be free. If you have a vision, go after it. It's worth it.

I would have almost succumbed to the simplistic artwork and classified the series as too childish, but it's really not a bad cartoon. If you can tolerate a little more action, there are fun interactions between traditional Justice League characters and as a filler between reads it's more than adequate. There are also no New 52 conveniences or a black guy instead of a redhead like in the live-action Supergirl. If you've already seen enough of the DCU AOM movies, you can seamlessly follow up with this and be completely satisfied.

Compared to Belle de Jour, there’s too much Fernando Rey, to whom I am allergic, and typical Buñuel jokes and ideas, but this time they are put together in a completely unacceptable collage. Regardless of Deneuve's interesting transformation from naive little girl to arrogance itself. Franco Nero is also really weak.

Probably the only Buñuel film I really liked. I am now reading Kessel's novel and I am enjoying it. Strangely enough, I don't even wish Buñuel had attempted a period film in this case, because he would have had a hard time creating a believable 1920s in the 1960s. Thus the machined fashion in which Deneuve looks as if she is constantly walking down the catwalk makes sense, which ideally corresponds to her character, who has only a minimal perception of the reality in which she exists. The unexpected cuts to dreams within dreams, and the general theme of prostitution to cement romantic love, combine to make a very successful body for an interesting viewing experience.

Not Buñuel's best, yet Michel Piccoli is in his place and Mirbeau's book gives a hint of themes to come. However, I have decided to compare it with other adaptations in the future. At the very least, replacing Moreau with Léa Seydoux is more than acceptable. I also suffer from the decision to move the plot to the 1930s (which is hard to believe in because the sets utterly fail) because it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps the only reason is that the director chose this period because he remembered it and it was closer to him.

The Exterminating Angel has surprisingly become a film that I have started to return to often in my thoughts. Of course, the only attractive element is the point, but that is enough for many sleepless nights. A subtle, creeping film.

A deeply human story. It is the story of the transition from Petr to Lucie Brychtová. It was quite interesting to watch the wave of interest that her appearance on the Jan Kraus show and the subsequent debate at the Na Prádle theater generated. However, it should be noted that as compelling and full of emotion as Lucie's story is, it is only one of many, and the details vary for other trans people. Let us therefore not lump them together, but let us wish them joy in life and the opportunity to work in the fields they were engaged in before their transformations. Because why would someone like Lucie act as a guide? Does that make sense to you?

A completely dead adaptation of Agatha's classic 1929 novel that could have benefited from a more dynamic pace and half the runtime. However, the absence of familiar characters and the rather hokey main theme don't make the book out to be anything special either. I would only recommend it if you appreciate individual moments such as the casting of James Warwick, who soon played Tommy in the series Partners in Crime (1983).