DaViD´82

Untapped potential is not the right expression, but it’s the first that comes to mind. This adaptation doesn't particularly disgrace the book, but it's just a crude illustration of the source material. And I don't like that, a little inventiveness wouldn't hurt.

Parkinson with Parkinson’s in a movie which, with its cynical introduction, raises the faint hope that this could perhaps be a toned-down version of Harold and Maude. However, this feeling disappears all too soon and it descends into being a regular, hundred-times-seen friendship classic that sadly plays your heartstrings.

I understand that Rachel and Adrien wanted to see the sights of Prague, but did they really have to sign up for a movie where even brain-dead viewers are always ten steps ahead of the characters? The result isn’t improved by the vain attempt at copying the poetry of Wes Anderson. It falls very short in terms of poetry and atmosphere (these show through in just a couple of scenes and is these that suggest that if the whole movie had been that good, it would have made up for the unfortunate screenplay) and it is just weird and stupid. Really weird and very stupid. Not to mention the killing length of it, considering nothing happens for the whole last half hour.

Kids must be jumping for joy; I’m happy for them. The creators have carried on with never-ending falling and chase scenes. But I didn’t expect anything different. They’ve earned a fortune on it, I’m happy for them. But it’s over the line if you leave the humor out of Scratch’s escapades; you’d better not ask me what I would do to the authors for it. The only positive side of the third Ice Age is Pegg’s Buck who seems like he came out of a completely different animated movie. An animated with a slightly more mature character which I would enjoy maybe more than first-graders. Can’t have those little beggars hogging every single animated movie for themselves, now, can we?

I have been complaining for a long time that Czech cinema has been avoiding letting skeletons out of the closet of local history, while our German neighbors have been tackling one historical blot after another. Plus, they almost always do this in an unforgettable way. And so I am really extremely grateful that somebody here has tried at last. That it remained just an attempt is another matter... It was clearly lacking any dramatic tension. Tension that was present in The Ear. Cut deep and not just skate about on the surface. Even so, this is a sufficiently high quality picture (the scenes with the bicycles, the scenes with the photo-shoot!) that withstands, despite its shortcomings. P.S.: The poster only makes sense with the opening line, which, while being original, I would say is a little counterproductive. And also I wonder whether the similarity of the story with the fates of Čeněk Šlégl was merely incidental or not.

Truffaut's mastery is already on display in this film more than once, but it would only come out in all its glory in later films. PS: Am I the only one who thought that Paris was so visually and atmospherically reminiscent of old Žižkov?

The prawns would probably love Whiskas, but personally I would prefer to pay entrance for a movie that had it clear in its head whether it wants to be a sloppy B sci-fi where the worse it is the better, or E.T., Transformers, Children of Men or War with Newts. I’m not saying that it can’t be combined into one whole, but certainly not by forcibly changing genre every quarter of an hour, forgetting about everything that has come before and shaking a stolen closed circuit camera around like a maniac. I followed the trend presented by Blomkamp and within fifteen minutes I forgot that I had ever seen this movie.

Hell on Earth begins for him, for me doors open into movie heaven. A picture that took great advantage of the “gap" in crime sagas, i.e. the time spent in prison. Usually movies begin at the end (or end and the beginning) of a prison term, or they jump it with a caption reading “X years later". Audiard manages to create a really raw and unpleasantly authentic atmosphere that is at the same time full of poetry, the type of stuff that Michael Mann often smuggles into his movies. Simply a masterly, slow-moving movie. Nothing more, nothing less. And nothing else is needed.

A nature documentary from the BBC. What more do I need to say? Well, OK, this is the same as Planet Earth, not on a global scale this time, but focused fully on one place, the oldest national park in the world, Yellowstone. While the opening, winter episode is completely faultless, overflowing with quantities of unique information and shots, the parts about summer and fall end up rather overshadowed. Apart from the mountaineering bear expeditions it brings nothing that we haven’t seen before even in other documentaries (although never so beautifully) and the fall section is spoiled by cheap philosophizing at the end (while the opening half hour is again perfect; my favorite is Clark’s Nutcracker). However, I’m not sure myself where these are justified objections or if it’s just spoilt nitpicking which is the BBC’s fault for the high quality of its productions.

A synonym for darker than dark, cynical and absurd social comedy that doesn’t know the concept of political correctness? From now on, Louise-Michel!