Stanislaus

Funny, romantic, brisk! In the span of a few minutes, we get to see the life of a man who dared to take a risk and grabbed his biggest chance by the short hairs. And even though it looked like it wasn't going to end well, there is a happy ending.

A very unusual concept of one seemingly ordinary date, in which various formalities occur that you would not normally expect in everyday life. The result is a funny and imaginative short film with a witty conclusion.

As in Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis", the main character, Joseph K., is thrown into a completely absurd situation right at the beginning and there are many unanswered questions in the world for which we will wait in vain for answers. Orson Welles decided to bring this unconventional novel to the screen, and IMHO he succeeded. He cast Anthony Perkins in the lead role, who had already proven two years before that he could command the audience's attention in a thriller (Psycho). Orson Welles, as the conniving attorney with a shrill voice and confident delivery, was a great balance to the unstable Perkins. The icing on the cake was the casting of Jeanne Moreau and Romy Schneider, who added to the film's charm. The most impressive scenes were Joseph and Leni's conversation during the storm and Joseph's escape through the narrow corridors from the excited girls. All in all, a very fine film adaptation of a literary classic, highlighting the insignificance of an individual trying to defy a system that is corrupt through and through, and so everything comes to its inevitable conclusion.

Since the remake is knocking on the door, I decided to watch the original 1981 film without being some kind of horror movie fan. And I have to say that this 30+ year old film does not do the genre any shame. Many of the scenes are nicely paced, the atmosphere is thick, and the visual effects are quite well done for the time (the rape in the woods was really scary). Otherwise, the make-up artists also did a great job and created more than one hideous face.

John Carter may be brimming with breathtaking audiovisual effects and lavish production design, but on the other hand, there is a fairly bland story (to what extent this is the fault of E. R. Burroughs, I really don't know), which is marred by a lot of clichéd dialogue and a few completely deaf spots. Andrew Stanton is much more suited to directing animated films that stand very tall within their genre (Finding Nemo, WALL-E). The lead actor, Taylor Kitsch, also doesn't have that much potential to grab the audience's attention - which (in my opinion) was mostly taken care of by Mark Strong (and that cute "dog"). In short, a film that is solid in terms of form, but not so much in terms of content.

Paperman, as an Oscar winner in the field of short animated films, is not original in its story, compared to Signs and Post-It Love, but it manages to captivate with its unusual animation, black and white visuals and pleasant music. As a result, it is a cute American caress that has a certain charm despite its simplicity.

I've always liked films "based on a true story" and here, thanks to a great story and the casting of Helen Hunt and William H. Macy, that's doubly true. The film isn't actually as sad as it might seem at first glance, because it looks at the problem from the lighter side (or so it seemed to me). In short, a nice and enjoyable film that I can only highly recommend to watch.

I have finally seen the much lauded and seven(!) Academy Award-winning Shakespeare in Love and I have to say that I understand the enthusiasm and reviews the film has received. Even if it never becomes a favourite of mine, this film still has a lot going for it. The cast is perfect, especially Judi Dench (I can understand Oscar for the few scenes she was in), Geoffrey Rush and Gwyneth Paltrow ... but the rest of the were good as well. Then, of course, there's the story itself, blending fact with fiction, resulting in a film that's fun to watch; there's romance, tragedy and humour, just like Shakespeare himself. In short, a film that is one big (theatrical) drama, in which comedy and tragedy alternate - it doesn't take place on stage all the time, but the rest is spot on.

A solid costume romantic drama, whose success lies in the performances of Montgomery Clift and Olivia de Havilland (a well-deserved Oscar) and especially in the very unexpected ending, which (at least in my film experience) is far from the traditional ending of films of this genre. I certainly can't say that I knew how it would end after half an hour, which is a detriment to many other films; here the unpredictability is very welcome. In short, a film in the true sense of the word, which at the end will make you shudder and ask: "Did it really have to end like that?"

For me, the weakest Hitchcock film so far, lacking suspense (maybe I'm just infected with his nickname "master of suspense") and a more convoluted plot with some wow-effect at the end of the story (at least it seemed that way to me). The night scenes of the "cats" running around on the rooftops are probably the best shots of the whole film, along with the masquerade ball. Other than that, I don't know what I would single out about this (to me) mediocre film. It just doesn't have the quality of Vertigo, Psycho, or Rear Window.