Lima

It took me a long, long time to get into this film, because I felt that Eastwood was emotionally blackmailing me in the end. If only! This is one of the best films about human desire, courage without boundaries and especially the right to deal with one's life according to one's best knowledge and conscience. In the words of Piergiorgio Welby: "man has a right to life, but does not mean that man must live it at all costs", and I would see this as the main mission of Eastwood's work (and I would recommend it to all Catholics). Bravo Clint, bravo Hilary!

Motto: KLAATU BARADA NIKTO. If you'd expect, even from the poster, that this is some kind of sci-fi B-movie in which a hostile alien walks around, butchers everything it comes across and kidnaps pretty girls, you'd be wrong. This, now a classic sci-fi flick, is exceptional. It is an exceptional story, with strongly political and anti-war overtones, which shows that it was written in the time of the raging Cold War and in the era of atomic weapons and the uncertainty of the days to come. This uncertainty is to be resolved by Klaatu, an emissary of an advanced alien civilization, who wants to convey a message to the representatives of all states that if they do not live in peace, Earth will be punished by Gort, a kind of "space cop", a guardian of peace on the planets and an invincible robot with the power to melt an entire tank artillery in a few seconds with its beams. The very attempt to make peace under the threat of violence is a clear indication of what the filmmaker thought about humanity's (in)ability to come to a peaceful agreement, and it is evident throughout the plot. The countries refuse to meet, Moscow argues with London, Washington with both, etc. Thanks to the screenplay, well-written dialogues and solid performances (especially by the charismatic Klaatu), one can forgive the fact that the special effects are few. Except for the opening ten minutes, in which an alien spaceship lands in Washington and Gort performs a few "macho" tricks, the entire film is conversational. Which doesn't detract from the film's impact......And as for the motto at the beginning of my comment, it's one of Gort's orders towards the end of the film. If it sounds familiar, you're not wrong, it was used humorously (or cheekily, as the case may be) a couple of decades later by Sam Raimi in his iconic Army of Darkness, and is mentioned on one of the zombie movie websites as one of the essential catchphrases of the horror genre. Quite a paradox, right?

People with no relation to motoring (of which I’m one), don't be fooled by the poster with Al Pacino in a racing outfit, or Rady's comment here, this is in no way a "look behind the scenes of motorsport", the main character could be a skier or a cyclist and it would come out the same. It's not about cars, 95% of the time it's about an untypical romance, beautifully acted, without annoying clichés, not emotionally draining in the fateful ending and with one amazing love confession on top. However, those who like to rush through films and often use words like "boring" and "I'd cut it by half an hour" in their reviews, should avoid this slow-moving melodrama.

When I saw Michel Gondry’s video for the song “Army of Me” by Icelandic diva Bjork years ago, I knew this man was an original filmmaker with a unique visual sense and the soul of an overgrown child. His latest film proves that the brilliant Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was no fluke, and that as co-writer of the Oscar-winning screenplay (along with Kaufman), he certainly had no small part in its final form, because the same can be said about The Science of Sleep. You won't see anything so charmingly light-hearted, almost childishly playful and visually engaging nowadays, and I can't think of another contemporary filmmaker, with a few exceptions, who could be compared to Gondry in terms of unbridled imagination. I admit that this rather crazy love story (if it can be called that at all) is not for everyone, but for those who enjoy slightly different films, don't mind unusual narrative techniques and like to indulge in dreams, this is an obvious choice. And for this elegant open resolution of the strange relationship between the two leads (the uncharacteristically beautiful and charismatic Bernal and Gainsbourg), Gondry deserves an accolade. This film, or rather its acceptance/non-acceptance, will show you where you stand with your child in your soul.

Scientology superstar Travolta smashed the piggy bank, donned a costume that would make him a first-class carnival attraction, and helped create a tribute to his guru, the founder of the Church of Scientology, L.R. Hubbard. This case, more than any other, shows that you can't make a good film out of an extremely crappy book. Especially when behind the camera is a man whose creative impotence is admirable and who can only manage to steal (or should I call it quote?) scenes from famous science fiction works (e.g. the slow-motion passage through the glass panes after being hit by a bullet is the blatant agony of the replicant Zhora from Scott's Blade Runner). Too bad the Church of Scientology itself hasn't been as "successful" as this piece of crap by Travolta, there would be one less influential zealot.

Tony Scott abandoned his epileptic camera manias that bogged down the otherwise impeccable Domino and took on a script that may look original, but some of us have had the privilege before, including bending paper to explain a space-time jump (remember Event Horizon?). Some may legitimately find the whole plot terribly wacky, others may not like the incongruous combination of crime and sci-fi, but in any case Scott has made an easily digestible flick that is nice to watch, good for eating popcorn and out of your head before you can say "deja-vu". And it's a pity that, given the development of the plot, I had already figured out the only possible resolution half an hour before the end.

I would like to paraphrase a sentence uttered in the film itself: "My eyes saw a grotesque spectacle summoned from the darkest corners of Miller's strange soul." The rape of history under the guise of a comic adaptation (under which everything is tolerated nowadays, perhaps even if someone made Němcová's Grandmother a dominatrix in a S&M parlour), the fanatically stubborn (though undeniably charismatic) Leonidas, who reminded me of another fanatic, Hoferik from Signum Laudis, so I certainly wouldn't want him as a king, and the slow-motion shots in the second half with their increasing frequency bored me to death. If, given the high box office returns, this empty and narcissistic affair will set the course for the future of the film industry, then we have no choice but to shout "Gott mit uns!" I'm not sure if sentences like "...I felt like smashing someone's face in after the movie was over..." is the right emotion to take away from a film, but I have no doubt that for angry young teens, this will be the best movie of their short lives so far :)

An interestingly conceived and unusually ended story about a man who wakes up one day to find that all the people on the globe had disappeared and he was left alone. A very imaginative script, a great performance by New Zealand star Bruno Lawrence, and most importantly, proof that you can make great science fiction without big special effects. In hindsight, I see this film as a truly unique piece of New Zealand cinema that was still in its infancy in terms of international recognition. Really, this film gets under your skin and stays there for a long time. I watched it almost 15 years ago on ČT2. Interesting fact: director Geoff Murphy later assisted Peter Jackson with the battle scenes in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

A very informative documentary, as if made for the "flagship of Czech climatology" Václav Klaus and his pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic babble.

We’ve seen this before: a private eye and his criminal case, which over time begins to be too big for him. Well, yes, hello to Roman Polanski and his Chinatown; though that one is in another world in terms of quality. Hollywoodland does have a nice noirish atmosphere, too, but the screenplay is severely lacking. For one thing, I was expecting a bigger criticism of Hollywood's hard business practices, there is no final build-up to arouse some emotions, and the last act drags on, with the story going in circles. But on the other hand, I never thought I'd ever say this, but Ben Affleck (Palme d'Or at Cannes and Golden Globe nomination) is the best thing in the whole film. He's great, giving a pleasantly subdued performance as George Reeves, free of his typical acting mannerisms (his trademark in previous films: a rather irritating constantly astonished look), and as the tragicomic Superman, dressed in costume, he's simply charming. And I'll never forget the tired look on his face just before he wraps things up at the end. Overall summary: between 3 and 4 stars, rounded up, this film is worth watching despite all its flaws.