Lima

Leaving aside the obvious fact that the processes of flow change and cooling that Emmerich describes in this film are long-term and span many decades (OK, exaggeration, I'll take it), the rest of the story is the essence of everything that is wrong with contemporary Hollywood: the tired clichés, the boring to tedious predictability of everything that happens on screen, the shoddy psychology of the cookie-cutter characters on the level of a literary attempts of a ten-year-old. The result is an unhealthy toying with the intelligence and tolerance of the normally thinking viewer. EMMERICH, GET OUT!!!! PS: To rate a film with a few stars just because it has great visual effects seems misguided to me. Nowadays, good special effects are par for the course, not an exception.

I have mixed feelings. I have my thoughts about the case of Karolína Chudá, a student at the University of Economics, and her purpose in life, filled with constant visits to supermarkets, her almost morbid addiction to fashion trends, and her undisguised disappointment that Dara Rollins has the same pants as herself, and I did have some fun at her expense, but I can hardly mock her obsession with her looks, unless it exceeds the norm, which I don't think is the case here, although the author tries to convince me otherwise. As Karolina presented the inventory of her bathroom with ten kinds of expensive body lotions, and all kinds of shampoos, soaps, bath foams and conditioners, I felt like I was walking with Alice in Wonderland from the position of a man with only one kind of soap and one kind of shampoo (as long as it foams and cleanses), but I guess it's hard to talk about some sort of submission to advertising manipulation here. Simply caring about one's appearance and being a woman, this fits together and applies from a hen at the Dolní Měcholupy train station to the British Queen. And the wannabe alarming headlines about how much is spent on cosmetics in the Czech Republic seem to be devoid of any value. The story of 15-year-old Zuzana, who aspires to a career as a model, also left me with mixed feelings. The moment during the interview, when the head of the casting agency convinces the skinny Zuzana to lose a but more weight, was chilling. It was almost unhealthy to see the figures of those girls who could be strumming their ribs, and it was here where Erika Hníková could have worked a bit harder to get closer to the feelings of potential anorexics. But Zuzana's life story is absolutely trouble-free, she ends up successful and it's hard to get rid of the impression that she can be an encouragement for other skinny girls and a confirmation of their "correct" actions in their attempt to lose some extra weight. Bizarre, and also conflicting, is the story of Eva, a sheet metal turner at Škoda, who has undergone two very expensive breast surgeries, and is now about to have a third, because of a 2 mm larger areola around her nipple. Interesting, but not really indicative of anything, because the author is showing too much of an extreme that is not indicative of the vast majority of today's women, or so I hope. And so the only story where the author hits the nail on the head is the fate of Magda, a woman who unnecessarily spent lots of money on slimming products, including a fraudulent "slimming" CD. I believe there are many women who saw themselves reflected in that story, and perhaps some of them were taken by it, and learnt by the beautifully cathartic point of Magda's efforts, her final "discovery" that the best and most effective thing to do is to move and not eat. Despite all my reservations, the undeniable fact is that Erika Hníková has made a documentary that, despite its unevenness, will not leave anyone indifferent.

Yeah, it's masterfully shot and does have an impressive atmosphere and great actors, but you just can't close your eyes to the ideological morass that pervades the whole film. If I had to choose which side I would take, the side of the armed defenders of the communist cage or the side of the cross-border smugglers of people who want to live in freedom and a decent society, I would choose the latter.

A very rough film indeed, very close to Hopper's classic The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in its rawness and unrefined conception. Dynamic direction and a lethal pace, and for me personally one of the best horror films of this year. PS: And it stars Leoš Suchařípa!

For a person who is not interested in history and confuses Husák with Hitler, it is certainly a meritorious and interesting piece of work, but for someone with an interest in history, it is a modest account that does not bring any fundamental new information and not even the controversial view of one human being that is so much proclaimed in the press. In any case, the performances were excellent, including Bruno Ganz, whose role was tempting to overact, which fortunately did not happen. Overall, I would see it as a three and a half stars, rounded down this time due to the high expectations.

In terms of its formal execution (and the crazy script, too, Macourek must have been on mushrooms), it was a rather unique affair in the history of Czechoslovak cinema at the time. After all, in what other film of that era of politically minded cinema, when nudity was still relegated to the realm of very subtle shots and graphic violence was almost taboo, could you see a film with crowds of people walking around with undisguised nudity and with brutally severed heads in plates of soup. And all of this, please, was shown as part of the then Workers' Film Festival. Had this film been re-released years later (it has never been shown on TV) so today's audiences could become more familiar with it, it would be a minor cult classic today. The only minor problem for me is how to actually rate such an obscure affair with muddled direction in a meaningful way, which is why I choose a cautious two stars.

I like Verhoeven, but he couldn't have been serious about this pseudo-medieval piece of schlock. Or maybe it was a parody (especially from the second half onwards) and I didn't get it. Paul, you better stop writing scripts and stick to what you do best. And by the way, the brutality wasn't so hot either.

As always, the great Kevin Bacon gives such an impressive performance that his character of the paedophile Walter evoked not only rejection, but also a need to empathise with his feelings and, surprisingly, a certain participation in his uneasy integration into society. But I guess it only works like that in the movies. In real life, if I found myself face to face with a real paedophile, I would probably behave like most of the people who condemn Walter, sort of along the lines of a statement that wasn't in the movie, but was tangible: "O.K., kid, you're coming back from prison, you want to start a new life, but I don't trust you, and I don't want to trust you, and nothing is going to change that in the future." This, of course, taking into account the fact that paedophilia is a hard-to-treat deviation (practically incurable without medication or castration) and the recidivism rate, quite obvious in the film, is high. The intelligently written script and low-key cinematography allows the actors to shine, which I love, and once again I have to reiterate that Kevin Bacon was an acting titan here, at least for those 80 minutes.

Greengrass's account of the memorable Bloody Sunday of 30 January 1972 is remarkable not in the facts he presents to the viewer (after all, this painful blemish on British politics is widely known in Western Europe and many documentaries have been made about it), but in the form in which it is presented. Greengrass's evocative direction, backed by nervous, jittery camerawork, successfully gives the viewer the impression that they are not watching a film reconstruction, but a documentary recording of one of the participants in the demonstration. I would argue that the main idea of the film is the words of the organiser of the demonstration at a press conference on the same day that 27 people stained Irish soil with their blood: “I just want to say this to the British Government... You know what you've just done, don't you? You've destroyed the civil rights movement, and you've given the IRA the biggest victory it will ever have. All over this city tonight, young men... boys will be joining the IRA, and you will reap a whirlwind.” 4 1/2 *.

There are certainly a few scenes that get under your skin and make you shudder, but as a whole it’s too contrived, too "for effect" (in this respect I experienced the same feelings at the turning point in Haggis's other film Million Dollar Baby), too many coincidences that I found hard to accept, unbelievable behaviour of some of the characters. I didn’t buy it...