Filmmaniak

The first half of the last episode of The Hunger Games offers nothing but constant talking, preparation for the revolution, gathering courage and calm before the storm. Meanwhile, we will have to wait a year for a proper civil war and action before the second half premieres. Actually, it's more of a prequel. From a technical perspective, the film is not badly shot, the actors are very good and the dialogues are quite fine, but it is desperately boring and lacks action. Most of the time, you just wait for something to finally start happening, but you won't get see it, because the creators are saving it for the next film. In addition, the whole thing looks much cheaper than the previous two films. If nothing else, in the previous Hunger Games you could at least enjoy the grandeur of the gaming arena, the digital tricks, or at least the extravagant color stylization of the capital and its inhabitants. This is not the case with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, as most of the story takes place in an underground bunker or in ruins, so the film is not only much more intimate, but also not very visually attractive. For the average viewer, or one who hasn’t seen the previous episodes, this is a waste of time. For fans of the series, the film only serves as a moving illustration of events that they already know from the book. And, of course, it doesn't make sense to tell them that the new Hunger Games is not worth it...

Personally, I consider the first 30 minutes of the film to be completely useless. The exceptionally well-developed exposition perfectly presents the main protagonists (it’s a bit lengthy), but you have to wait a long time for the most important thing, because the trucks loaded with nitro-glycerin don’t set off on a dangerous and bumpy road full of obstacles until in the middle of the film. On the other hand, driving in a storm over a crumbling bridge is one of the best filmed and most exciting scenes I've seen in a quite a long time.

An Italian football comedy that combines too many motifs, and it is not able to make use of those that are good. The animosity between the two teams and their matches is funny, as is the plot about the return of a promising football player, who is an asset to the team, to the city to find his long-lost love. But the side trips about killing sheep and the career of a certain referee are pointless and divert attention from the most important thing - the viewer knowing who to cheer for.

A bold and strong film. Following the example of the Way of the Cross of Jesus Christ, the main protagonist, fooled by Christian ideology, sets out on her own path to destruction. The mostly static scenes, shot in long, undivided shots, captivate the audience with their impressiveness, convincing acting and the strikingness (and perversity) of the ideas presented in them. All the while the film proclaims that the Catholic Church is evil, only to eventually take a different stance in the final quarter of an hour and prepare a confusing twist, which, however, is fundamentally at odds with the beliefs that it had promoted until then. But that's also the only complaint I have about the film.

Richard Linklater filmed his life's work. The magical and nostalgic story was filmed continuously for twelve years with the same actors, who aged with it. Thanks to this, the film is unique and deserves to be written in the history of cinematography in golden letters. And it’s amazing. However, I can't shake the feeling that as a normal film, made via the usual method, Boyhood would not have done nearly as well. It is a bit slow in places and 166 minutes is really a lot for a relatively normal drama from the life of one family. Only its form is enchanting and extraordinary, for which Linklater deserves endless praise. Because this is no longer just a movie - it's life.

A badly told story with an unsympathetic protagonist who behaves like the biggest idiot. In frequent voiceovers, he often spews forth some bloated, would-be philosophical wisdom. The plot is stupid and the "comedy" plots don't work (I laughed twice during the movie). The best character is the friend of the main protagonist, played by Filip Blažek, who is as a good a person as they come. If I had to travel by car from Prague to Prachatice and back and then back to Ostrava, whenever the main protagonist wanted me to, I would honestly give it up quite quickly. The film is not bad from a craftsmanship perspective, but in terms of content, it is terrible.

The main anti-hero, Guy Pearce, races his way through post-apocalyptic Australia following a stolen car and is assisted by a mentally ill Robert Pattinson. If he at least uttered a few words at the beginning and explained how important this car is to him, the whole plot would immediately cease to exist. The pace is slow and there is barely an hour of actual plot in the film, but somehow it was dragged it out to almost double the runtime. Pattinson's character is much more interesting than Pearson's, and even Pattinson's performance is better. Pearce just frowns the entire time and the viewer wonders why he is doing what he is doing. I probably wouldn't recommend the film to post-apocalyptic fans either, because if a headline didn't appear at the beginning explaining that the film took place ten years after an unidentified catastrophe, I wouldn't even realize that it was supposed to be post-apocalyptic.

Every year, two to three films are made in the Czech Republic that are really good (especially compared to the rest of domestic production). Fair Play is one of them. Powerful stories about being powerlessness in the days of socialism, about intimidation, blackmail and manipulation through an uncompromising regime have been told many times, but never in connection with sports. The directing is very precise and clean, and there is no lack of attention to detail and elaborate dialogues. Judit Bárdos in the main role of a talented athlete, Aňa Geislerová as her mother and Roman Luknár in the role of a strict coach also deserve praise. Satisfaction.

A pseudo-documentary about vampires that humorously targets vampire stereotypes and successfully makes you laugh while cleverly parodying their lifestyle and daily routine. It doesn't often happen to me that I laugh out loud at a movie for so long that my laughter smoothly transitions into the next laugh caused by the next joke. And when it happens, I consider it a rarity. It happened to me during this film all the time, because there are dozens, if not hundreds, of good (and often pretty sophisticated) jokes.

The theme of Eastern European immigrants living in the USA could easily be treated in a very interesting and engaging way, but that is not the case with this film. The protagonists of the film are desperate people who make only bad decisions all the time and thus make their lives less and less bearable. They are not sympathetic, and the fact that they are relatively well written and even well-acted does not save them much. The level of the film is not even raised by a satirical self-parody regarding allusions to festival films and award-winning non-actors, and the closer the film comes to the end, the more it bores the audience. The side plot about a man who longs to become a woman is done nicely, but ends up being cut off without any climax.