D.Moore

Dream House looks like an adaptation of a book that could have easily (in a weekend) been written by Stephen King. The protagonist is about to write a novel, he, his wife and children find a new house, but their garden is haunted at night, the house has a mysterious past, the neighbors, who might know something about it, are stubbornly silent... And the atmosphere gets thicker and thicker. So now is when the (potential) audience splits into "Sounds good, I want to see it", "I don't care and don't want to see it" and "It'll be crap, but I have to see it so I can bitch about it later". I'm very glad I ended up in the first group (and I'm sure the aforementioned "kingliness" is to blame - I bet the screenwriter is a big fan of the master too). Those expecting a bloody horror film full of ghosts will be disappointed, but Dream House is a very good drama with a suspenseful plot. If you enjoy the opening 40 minutes or so, I think you'll devour the rest of the film after the twist that comes halfway through. The acting is superb and Daniel Craig's performance is a joy to watch, the fabulously chilling music of John Debney plays in the background, and director Sheridan literally creates the perfect atmosphere and clearly knows what the word gradation means. On the one hand I'm sorry that Dream House is so poorly rated, but on the other hand I'm glad that I enjoyed it so much.__P.S. Avoid the full trailer.__P.P.S. And if you listen to the soundtrack before the film, avoid the song titles for good measure.

By car, by train, on foot, in a garbage truck (but not in its cab)... That was a hell of an escape. Only a plane, a boat and a bicycle were missing to complete the list of means of transport. In the film we find all the basic hallmarks of Sam Peckinpah - great opening credits, slow motion shots of everything, western themes, the associated shootouts and hotel finale, characters that aren't exactly positive, women that the script doesn't exactly handle tenderly, Slim Pickens... I can't say exactly what The Getaway lacked, but I didn't get the feeling of perfection I've got from other films of the master's the first time.__P.S. Quincy Jones' music is at times overly strange, but ultimately good.

The Thing is not a bad movie. A useless film? Yes, but not a bad film. Well, not exactly. The director has a flair for the right horror atmosphere, helped by a more than good score by Marco Beltrami and a bunch of special effects artists who did an amazing job (seriously, because they combined state-of-the-art digital effects with excellent models and masks in a way that would make Stan Winston rejoice). It's worse with the film’s lousy script. The people who wrote it, in my opinion, let themselves get too tied up with the fact that they were writing a prequel and that they had to follow the original film with so many things (the axe in the wall, the ice "sarcophagus", the two-headed monster, the dog, the polar bear with his throat cut...) that they forgot about originality. Alas. I liked the beginning of the film, which honored the short story template, I liked ideas like the one with the seals and just about every scene with The Thing in action, but I still felt like I was watching something I'd already seen once before that had "only" been dressed up in a fancier coat. I was also sad to see how the script flubbed the characters (most of them are easily confused individuals) and several times also the logic (the helicopter crash and who survived it). Still, I was not offended by the new version of The Thing and I would not dare to give it less than a slightly above average three stars.

A poetic, dramatic and comedic look back at how we not only were, but unfortunately how we still are and probably will continue to be. Vojtěch Jasný seems to have decided to juxtapose the simple beauty of nature and the complex relationships between people who live and die in this splendor. With the help of actors, non-actors, a script that really feels like an adapted municipal chronicle, the camera and the versatile music of one of our geniuses Svatopluk Havelka, he managed to create a film that still has a great testimonial value after more than fifty years and which I always enjoy watching.

A precise film, which could (or should) have been shorter overall and in some of the many plot lines to gain more momentum. Miroslav Macháček's acting is undoubtedly masterful, but the other actors also keep up with him with dignity. Scalpel, Please feels almost like an authentic medical documentary and I can't imagine what it would be like if it were made in the present day. How many would-be touching shots of teary-eyed children and adults would be in the film, how much weeping and touching music would play throughout... And so on.

This film was written and filmed in the spirit of the best (and therefore most clichéd) genre traditions, and includes the excellent actors Němec and Somr. Travis must have looked very good on the stage, and if someone (with the same cast of leads) decided to adapt it into a radio play, I wouldn't mind at all.

I know from my own experience that people like Dana Medřická's brilliantly played mother do exist and it's not easy to deal with them. They feel that if they don't sacrifice themselves, nail themselves to the cross, keep an eye on everything, and counsel everyone within reach at least once an hour, the world they support with their own bodies can easily collapse. Such people can be either ridiculous, unbearable, or pitiful. And this is the case with this film and the extremely believable performance by Dana Medřická. Because of her and because of the inconspicuous, but no worse acting of Bohuš Záhorský, this production is definitely worth seeing.

A modern (non)fairy tale, which almost kept me thinking: What would Terry Gilliam do with this subject matter? Would it have looked this ordinary under his leadership? Would it be so unpleasantly predictable? Would it be that empty? And boring? Definitely not. But you know what? Terry Gilliam probably wouldn't want to make anything like this. So we can thank Neil Jordan for at least a relaxing spectacle that went by quickly, looked good and had some nice music playing in it.

Kevin Costner in one of his best roles, not just in recent memory, but overall. A proper, decent family dad, the owner of a packaging company, a bit of a cold fish... and a murderer. A scumbag, anyone would think, but then Mr. Brooks would not be allowed to have the script he has. A cleverly written story that shows him primarily as a sick schizophrenic trying to fight his worse whispering self, played flawlessly by William Hurt. Unsuccessfully. So when Brooks carefully prepares and "goes for it", you almost feel sorry for him. And what about when a character who is even worse than him appears a few minutes into the film? And then one more? And what if Brooks starts dealing with somewhat unusual family problems? You can't really say he's the typical killer we wish the worst for from the start. The film reminded me most of Falling Down, and that speaks in its favor. I round up four and a half for the ending.

Paul Newman is great as Billy the Kid. He handled the role of a young cocky dandy with a hell of a fast left hand without a single mistake and the young Mr. Bonney is definitely unforgettable in his performance. It's worse with John Dehner, who played Pat Garrett. It's clear that Penn's film wanted to portray the friendship and the fall out of the two as naturally, yet also as dramatically as possible, but Dehner failed in this regard. Either he just grumbles blandly, or he suddenly resorts to a hideously overacting performance, as he did especially in the scene after the wedding, when he jumped in the style of a mad devil out of a box and I was just waiting to see if he would have a heart attack. As for the rest of the film - there are a number of original and certainly daring scenes for the time (the reaction of a little girl and her mother after Billy shoots one of the lawmen in the street), but otherwise it's pretty black and white, and not just in terms of imagery. Three and a half. Of course, I prefer not to compare it with Peckinpah's work.