DaViD´82

A Western version of “The Hobbit”. It's also kind of a journey there and back again, and as with “The Hobbit”, the journey there is much more fun.

“War with Newts" by Robert Merle, raped by the Hollywood money machine. However, time proved that, unlike the book, Nichols’ child mere quality craftsmanship. While for a good hour it looks like it had better in store. That applies until the moment when Day of the Dolphin significantly (or even completely) diverges from the book. Although an imagination is a good thing to have, when you get rid of the fundamental idea of the whole work and replace it with a dime-a-dozen American thriller with cute Cetaceans, well... you have a dime-a-dozen American thriller with cute Cetaceans and nothing else.

For everything that happened after the train robbery, I would be delighted to give Peckinpah’s most famous picture full marks and I would also gladly place the Wild Bunch on the pedestal of best westerns right behind Leone’s masterpieces. But I can’t, I just can’t. What prevents me doing so it the hour it takes to get going. It’s not bad, but it is so desperately ordinary and confusable with any other western (with the exception of the opening sequence, of course) that it’s hard to watch.

(Don't Fear) The Reaper, baby. Unfortunately I was right when I said to myself after seeing the opening credits that nothing better could possibly follow. Zombieland is a movie where its greatest blessing is also its greatest affliction. Woody Harrelson is unarguably outstanding and pulls the whole movie along, but even so the role should have been given to somebody with cult status gained by hard work in countless B-movies. Yes, somebody like Bruce Campbell would be more suitable. And everything in Zombielandis like. What you find here is good and entertaining, but you can also see clearly how much better and more rounded it could of been... P.S.: It was really nice to see the nod to Deliverance.

How the poet enjoyed life and how the poet lost his illusions. Simply a poet that Dušan Klein wouldn’t have liked much. The poser Bondy might have liked the result (but he still would have expressed his liking in the way that Tetsuo suggests), but nobody will ever find out. But to hell with it, because what is most important is that I like it in the end. I really like it. However, it is held back from getting the full five stars by the middle passage where it is unnecessarily slow-moving and nothing much happens and Hádek, whose acting is fantastic, just isn’t convincing as a seventeen year old.

This is almost better than Gran Torino. The opening scene on the motorbike is the best filmed scene this year, Caine is more uncompromising than anybody I have seen recently and for seventy minutes this really is a five-star movie. But then it starts to go wrong and the finale in the pub totally wrecks it. If it had remained on the “modest level" of pensioner versus local youth in front of a tenement block, I would have been much more content in the end. P.S.: Comparison with Gran Torino is essential, like it or not. Although in the end they are completely different genres, Eastwood worked and relied on the premise that everybody expected precisely what they get here from Harry Brown.

If Mulder and Sculley had appeared in this, it would have been one of the best X-File conspiracy episode ever. But as it is, in all ways it is “at least" a fascinating documentary through and through, where the absolutely obvious bias doesn’t matter one bit. P.S.: f this had been about similarly intelligent, but less cute rats, nobody would have given this a look, but anything in the name of dolphins, isn’t that right? I am intrigued to find out just how many of the really incensed and agitated viewers will make the effort to visit the website and make a donation.

At first, it has the most Dickensian atmosphere I have ever encountered on screen. It is therefore a crying shame that ultimately the whole thing falls flat from lack of atmosphere. Because of all the running around, the atmosphere gradually disappears until it vanishes completely. Where the original leaves the right Christmas mood in the reader even long after reading, Zemeckis merely leaves excellent impressions of the almost unreal fidelity to the illustrations in the original edition and perhaps even better impressions as they are “pulled" into three dimensions. There’s just no trace of Christmas spirit. Unlike the original, this will not become a Christmas classic beloved by many generations, but hopefully it will make at least one Christmas more pleasant for you. Assuming you have a 3-D IMAX in your area.

There was a time when I didn't go anywhere without a book about "Little Nicholas" in my hand. Those days are long gone, but Little Nicolas still has a special place in my heart. And so I didn't expect much from the adaptation. But I was mistaken. The adaptation is both unusually successful and, at the same time, unique. A pure embodiment of non-infantile family entertainment, which will often get more laughs from adults than from kids. Moreover, Nicholas’ misadventures in both forms have the special power to return you to your childhood, which is something that very few books and even fewer movies are able to do. And the fact that the film doesn’t compare to the original is not so relevant in this case, because I didn't even realize it until loooooong after I left the movie theater and had wiped away the last tears of laughter.

Amelie on a date with Ocean’s Homeless Eleven in grotesque trappings. Or Jeunet different again in his own inimitable way. Sometimes he overdoes it a bit, but you can’t be mad at him when even the "useless and redundant" ideas are so original. Although it is true that in the end it doesn’t all fit (a prime example is the football field full of mines). The result, however, is not a mish-mash; on the contrary, it is a gala presentation of originality grafted on the classic scheme of a relaxing pissing contest movie.