Marigold

An honest old-school thriller with a slightly dubious main character (a really decent performance for a self-learner and bookworm), a leisurely pace, pleasantly woody music and good acting performances by all concerned. From the viewer's point of view, it has a very attractive approach in that at first you know as little as the protagonist about the plot, and with him you unravel a ball of mystery – why did seven civilian CIA employees have to die, and why is the only survivor hunted game? The only thing that ruined it for me was that I fell asleep at the end of the film and missed the point. Can't they give it to you a little earlier? Well, at least I can't spoil it for you :o)))

Considerably weaker than the first film... A classically typical plot, repetition of the good jokes of the previous film and de facto everything like the first film, just a little more adolescent and awkward. Despite all the negatives, however, I still had a good time on the second expedition, mainly thanks to the excellent Clavier and his four roles. The end of the film was also successful, and it is incomprehensible to me why the third film did not benefit from the outlined plot. A decently fun, crazy film.

A captivating film that combines a peacefully flowing (an almost harmonious tempo) oriental legend of the emergence of a unified China and a riveting visual style ala The Matrix. Unlike a spectacular Western production, however, the battle scenes are only one of many components, and the battle in the story has multiple levels. This is not a deadly ballet in which the hero combats evil, but a kind of spiritual dialogue in which weapons are merely a means of knowing that the most powerful weapon is no weapon. Zhang presented his picture in an artistically riveting way, emotions appearing in colors and elements rather than mythically rigid characters (fire, water, air and earth seem to be expressing feelings for the heroes). I really like the "yin-yang" tuning of the story, where evil and good are inextricably linked in "The World" and the hero is not the one who defeats evil in the name of good, but one who understands the World and undergoes a sacrifice. With its overall tuning and atmosphere, Hero is an oriental balanced spirit, and with precise play with symbols, it ranks among the films which are not only a matter of the fast sword, but also a matter of thought. It's a pity that, after an overly straightforward introduction, it's too knotty in retrospectives and versions of past events, but its point comes just in time and comes off just as it's supposed to... Clear and genuine. Although Hero is a very Western film in some aspects (at times it may have exceeded good measure), the overall tone is very exotic and Eastern... And I'd be happy to watch it again later.

A standard large-scale film production, baroque rigid faces of the actors, an attempt at distinctive artistic stylization, self-purpose escalated brutality, excellent soundtrack.... And all this is in the service of the sacred purpose of the film. Mel Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald have chosen a very simple script trick, wherein they put reminiscences of the long-suffering and hardship of Jesus Christ in convenient places on familiar gospel scenes to reinforce the film's message. A message that I personally consider to be the most problematic part of a newly born phenomenon. This phenomenon speaks precisely to the part of the audience that is knowledgeable about biblical themes. It speaks in a way that is not dialogical, but purely illustrative. Here is the hero, this is what the evil Pharisees and the gloating people of Jerusalem did to him, and now you must feel indebted to him. Who Christ was, what is his message to the world — that is what The Passion of the Christ deals with very sketchily. It's not a testimony, but rather just a bloody portrayal of one of the greatest stories in human history. The biggest and most impressive. Mel Gibson actually gave the best testimony of the state of contemporary American cinema. The viewer is no more than sitting and staring while the "narrator" thinks for him. No one asks you to think, ask, or interpret during the film; even the strongest — that is, Christ's struggle with doubts about his mission — must be thematized into an embarrassingly literal character of the devil. Your only mission is to monitor the flow of carefully chewed and thoughtful "pseudo-reality", which has completely lost its symbolic validity and becomes a bloodthirsty direct transmission from the greatest execution of antiquity. And so, as the blood squirted into the orchestra, the makeup-smeared James Caviezel soiled the ground with artificial raspberry juice and made throaty sounds, I remembered a medieval liturgical drama where the same story is depicted with perspective and human kindness – loosely, playfully, with imagination, and it was a hundred times more impressive. Because while this is a celebration of human life, Gibson's "masterpiece" is merely a deafening invocation of deified death. Or: a "media event" once again triumphed over artistic quality... Not as bad or as good a film as some say.

Magnificent. Only a true genius is able to transform a creative crisis into such a film. What's the film about? What's the film going to be about? That's a question that continues to haunt Guido Anselmi's protagonist to the end... And the film really is only about what the film's going to be about. What is Anselmi's film going to be about, which is and is not at the very end. 8 1/2 is one of the most comprehensive narrative films I've had the pleasure of seeing; it permeates "reality", "dream" and "memory" so much that it is almost impossible to determine their exact limit. But that's what's going on here – I'm convinced that Marcello Mastroianni and his character are a kind of visualization in the film of the creator himself, who, filled with doubts, strives for an all-containing film. A truly essential work. And he feels that the way to do it is not through a "placeholder" story, but through the direct naming and narration of his memories, visions, desires... This hypothesis is confirmed by a unique narrative process, in which Fellini "performs" a scene from Guido Anselmi's nascent film and then lets it comment on either Guido himself, or on one of the characters. This gives the impression that 8 1/2 is a film that tells about itself. But it is by no means a self-centered film – it would not be Fellini if he were unable to create from his doubts a universal picture of creative uncertainty, futility (here, the gigantic construction of a spaceship) and camber. I see 8 1/2 as a film that describes its own origins, that looks into the heart of its creator, who ingeniously plays with the phenomenon of a "film within a film". If you put Fellini in place of Anselmi and his a heavily born film work 8 1/2, it will get into a complex and riveting game of symbols, hints and imaginative moments, which together form a wonderful and visually extraordinarily picturesque work that only one person could have created... Fellini succeeded in what Anselmi is striving for. Or rather, they both succeeded. It's an eternal shame that today's filmmakers don't have such prolific depression...

Well, it was shot by Troška, and that's just how it looks. In terms of craft, it's the hardest caliber ride, the screenplay is full of terribly malignant jokes and attempts to be as crazy as possible - some "cultural inserts" (such as the one with the moon and Aria from Rusalka) typically bear Troška’s handiwork, from which a judicious viewer feels sick. On the other hand, Troška managed to perfectly find the atmosphere of a classic Czech village in the midst of an idiotic rampage, and in some places the film is surprisingly faithful and poetic (perhaps inadvertently). Undoubtedly, this is due to excellent performances by the actors and non-actors (mainly Růžičková makes her Škopková great) and also some of the humorous situations. Not knowing what would come out of this filmmaking branch in the future, perhaps I would have given a star more. Unfortunately, we all know how that turned out...

An experience for a more hardened audience. Kevin seemed to like the character of the savior of the people, so he cut out his post-apocalyptic vision of American society, which is brought together by a postal deliveryman with a very sympathetic "turnkey dad" face, with absurd pathos and naivete. He's violently putting together a western and science fiction, and he's not good at it. At first I found it funny, but unfortunately the laughter became a disbelieving smirk after a while. This is how an advanced creative crisis manifests itself. I'd rather listen to songs about postmen a hundred times in a row than this manifestation of idiotic patriotism!

I really loved Contact from the very first moment and it did not stop amazing me to the very end. Carl Sagan's name as the author of the original is a guarantee that the film will consist of deep philosophizing on the subject of science, faith, truth and knowledge, rather than a shocking portrayal of the first contact with little green men (or other strange things). Strangely enough, the film absorbs all the distinctive parables and ideas without much difficulty, although sometimes their far-reaching aspects and the explicitness of their expressions move on the thin edge of cheesy. Yet the search of the sympathetic scientist for "first contact" (but rather the very nature of knowledge) is riveting and well filmed. It's just a shame that Zemeckis couldn't visually imitate Kubrick's epic 2001: A Space Odyssey... But then I'd be asking for too much...

An extraordinary space ballet, mixed with a psychedelic trip to the galaxy's edges. Why is Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey a great film? Because it resisted the lure of the book and instead of parroting Clark's text, it became a kind of bizarre visual essay on the future, the universe and people. Kubrick's brilliance is also evidenced by the fact that today, when film is taking the path of "perfect imitation," its riveting game of shapes, colors and sounds does not lose any of its concern or suggestiveness. In my opinion, that is why A Space Odyssey does not age, because it is not a copy of a sci-fi original, but a supreme work of art that transcends the boundaries of the sci-fi genre. To today's viewer it may seem lazy, peaceful, anti-dramatic, but its real charm is toiling beneath the surface of the action. Bravo! This work walks in the footsteps of the best tradition of artistic fantasy...

A film that can be subjugated by distinctive artwork, strongly stylized acting performances, interesting music and, above all, a strong Zeyer template, which I think Weigl transformed into the medium of the 20th century very "luminously" – that is, with a sense of lyrical-epic scenic drama with a considerable amount of pathos and grand gestures. This created a rather remarkable film, which perhaps repels through a certain rigidity and mechanical nature of processing, but still has a very special, and I would say captivating atmosphere. In other words, I don't have to see it again, but I kept something of it in my soul. At least the beautiful Magda Vášáryová, who always makes me light up inside... Oh, these women. That's magic :o)