DaViD´82

An incredibly overstuffed CGI-packed B-movie of the guilty-pleasure rank. In itself, that’s not bad, but it’s very unfitting for a Bond movie.

The beautiful silence of the mountains... Disrupted only by the rampage of a heroic climber in Stallone's unmistakable non-actor performance. I do not hide the fact that it is in a way a guilty pleasure affair, but even so the qualities of Cliffhanger cannot be denied.

Nothing special, but watchable compared to most films with a similar theme. Stallone is terrible, but since he's playing an American who's never played soccer, this may be the performance of his life, because you really don't believe his goalie for a second.

After watching the theatrical version a few times, I was convinced that, after the excellent Fellowship, The Lord of the Rings movie saga was doing a head dive before it got a chance to take off properly. It was indisputably a strong experience, but too obviously to be taken at face value without anything hidden “underneath the surface". “Merely" perfect craftsmanship and “just" a good movie which, in this case, is too darn little. It’s void of emotion and some of the changes leave you speechless; not even Michael Bay comes anywhere near this. Add to that unbalanced pace and overall incoherence. But then I saw the Special Edition. It’s incredible how this version, which lasts 45 minutes longer, has far better and more balanced pace and, thanks to added and extended scenes, it gains a completely new dimension. These are two different movies in terms of both tone and quality.

The spirit of the original didn’t exactly remain intact. But things like the drastic truncation, changes of character characteristics etc. can’t be criticized much… They are completely understandable. Especially when Peter Jackson’s presented his vision on the screen where, even though it isn’t flawless, the positives heavily overweighed the negatives. The Special Edition is even slightly better, but, unlike with the other episodes, it doesn’t change either the overall character or tone of the movie. It just adds some new scenes for fans and so it doesn’t really matter if you don’t get to see it. Which is the complete opposite of The Two Towers.

The American version of the greatest Czech, Jára Cimrman. And he runs too. He runs a lot. Forrest’s mom always told him to do this and that. My Mom always told me that this is a darn good movie. And I absolutely agree with my Mom. This is the kind of a movie which whenever you start watching you always say to yourself “I’ll watch just this one scene, oh, and then this one and…" And you end up after watching one scene after the other till once again you find yourself at the end of the movie. It’s moving, funny and sad like almost nothing else (especially if you, like me, believe that the child isn’t his) brilliant acting (not only from Hanks) and unforgettable scenes in every other minute of footage. But what am I saying, in every minute of footage.

Can humor go hand in hand with slowly built suspense and a thick, disconcerting atmosphere? Can you combine a sci-fi movie about invasion with questions of faith and destiny? Isn’t there an unwritten rule that “the dog never dies"? If Shyamalan had come up with this concept a decade later, everybody would have laughed at him. But he came up with it at a time when he was unarguably still at his creative zenith and managed to concentrate his talents on making one of the top thrillers of the beginning of the twenty-first century. It has just one weak spot: the very end when he proves once and for all whether or not he was one of those people who believes/hopes that everything happens for a specific reason. I’m not one of them and so in such a well-thought out movie, which to a certain extent Signs is, I felt that the ending (but not necessarily the overall message) was really unsatisfying and, to a certain extent, cheap. If it had been less ambitious and made do with just three (?) days of the first contact through the eyes of a regular family, it would have been more than enough for a good movie.

After seeing the first showing on the day of the premiere, without any prior information this really was a powerful and utterly unforgettable experience. Paradoxically, unlike other Shyamalan movies, this is only watchable twice. After that it just doesn’t work. The Sixth Sense lacks what is to be found in Unbreakable for instance, which reveals newer and newer layers every time you watch it again. The actors, especially Osment, are absolutely convincing and also there is no sense in singing the praises of Night’s directing, which is perfect in every respect. The same applies to the atmosphere. Anyhow, I reiterate that the first time you watch it is an unforgettable experience (but maybe not anymore, because everybody knows what happens even if they haven’t seen it), and so I have no choice but to give it a full set of stars.

One of the least appreciated movies of the past decade which was ahead of its time in many ways. Don’t forget that when it was made, comic book movies were still not taken at all seriously and were like a hot potato in terms of financing and quality, and no big studios wanted to have anything to do with them. If you saw it once and quite liked it, try giving Unbreakable another chance. It’s much more sophisticated than it might seem at first sight. Perhaps you will be surprised by its profoundness; and even if you aren’t, you will at least learn why it’s a good idea to avoid physical contact with others. And I would advise David Dunn never to come visit the Czech Republic. He would most definitely lose his mind upon arrival at Prague Main Station.

A decent film that unfortunately doesn't have the same balanced script in all the stories. It’s almost surprising that they were all shot by the same director.