NinadeL

The Hitchcock of the 1950s mostly includes all those famous films with Stewart and Kelly, and we see both of them in Rear Window right from the get-go. It's not bad. Watching the relationship of a chair-bound spoilsport with his leg in a cast and his efforts to break up with a frilly blonde whose only concern is her starched skirt. Thanks to the microcosm of the pavilion courtyard, this relationship nothing turns into an attractive detective story, and eventually, the relationship of the main characters turns into something worth paying attention to. Quite a pleasant experience, suitable for occasional repeated viewings.

These short story collages on the subject of capital cities are always problematic. After all, Paris after the year 2000 cannot be such a flat city of stories that fail to engage on their own and fit together as a whole. If I didn't take notes, after a few days I wouldn't even remember Tykwer's rather daring romance with Portman and the lovely ending of Payne, in which such a sweetly earthy American woman bade farewell to the city of all cities. Gérard Depardieu was a complete disappointment and what Natali made was absolute crap. 18 fragments are really too much for one film.

A very weak affair. An unimaginative shot-in-the-dark short story, which then as now attracted attention only by a bunch of familiar (but not interesting) names brought together. To start, we have a moment from the witches' coven, Madonna teases, Ione Skye shows her breasts and Valeria Golino is a familiar face, but no one knows her by name nowadays... and this group isn’t able to do anything together. Absolutely nothing. We continue with a story about how the couple has fun letting a busboy peek into their sex games, and yes, Jennifer Beals was and is sexy, but nothing more. Then we witness Rodriguez's prequel to Spy Kids. Okay, then. And the ending? He tries to convince us, in the words of Quentin himself, that Four Rooms is not complete bullshit, but rather that it holds together. That is the biggest mistake of all.

Once upon a time, in late 1941, the first "Wonder Woman" story written by William Moulton Marston was published. A lot of time has passed since then. Personally, I love the whole Amazon Princess series and the Lynda Carter series, and I'll take my pick from the animation too. I've just been slightly nervous since the new Man of Steel about how this thing would turn out. Turns out it was excellent. Last year, Gal Gadot made her debut as Wonder Woman in Dawn of Justice and attracted a lot of attention. Today, we have a film that we’ve been waiting for for 75 years, which manages to combine a long line of views on Wonder Woman’s origin and her sidekicks, incorporate it all into the new DCU, and treat traditional readers and new ones alike to a slice of their favorite concept. It works. Although it is true that purely for the film, WW2 was traded for WW1, the one that was supposed to end all future wars. Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman is a wonderful experience and IMAX is the perfect place to experience it.

The Allen movies about relationships are all the same. There are heaps of intellectual references everywhere, sharp humor, multiple layers of emotion, your favorite actors, and your favorite topics for conversation and reflection. I often feel like these are not individual films, but episodes of "Woody and his views on women." You have to be in the right mood and have insight into your own relationships in order to be able to follow it. In addition, it features all the "funny" formal tweaks and speeches to the viewer and once again the endless pile of references to Bergman, Fellini, McLuhan, Chaplin, Groucho Marx, Freud, Visconti/Mann... Commenting on these films is more like a sport, and the one who scores the most points is the one who made a mark every time he was supposed to laugh, be moved, or say "aha, I got that too." Menstruation in conversation is also the absolute pinnacle. Every time. Always.

I am delighted that Kristina was indeed able to complete the film and is now experiencing the pleasure of its screening. Roots in Ego is a dream project that proves that whatever goals a person sets for themselves, they can meet fulfil them in the future. But in order for such a dream to be fully free, its financing must also be free. If you have a vision, go after it. It's worth it.

I would have almost succumbed to the simplistic artwork and classified the series as too childish, but it's really not a bad cartoon. If you can tolerate a little more action, there are fun interactions between traditional Justice League characters and as a filler between reads it's more than adequate. There are also no New 52 conveniences or a black guy instead of a redhead like in the live-action Supergirl. If you've already seen enough of the DCU AOM movies, you can seamlessly follow up with this and be completely satisfied.

Compared to Belle de Jour, there’s too much Fernando Rey, to whom I am allergic, and typical Buñuel jokes and ideas, but this time they are put together in a completely unacceptable collage. Regardless of Deneuve's interesting transformation from naive little girl to arrogance itself. Franco Nero is also really weak.

Probably the only Buñuel film I really liked. I am now reading Kessel's novel and I am enjoying it. Strangely enough, I don't even wish Buñuel had attempted a period film in this case, because he would have had a hard time creating a believable 1920s in the 1960s. Thus the machined fashion in which Deneuve looks as if she is constantly walking down the catwalk makes sense, which ideally corresponds to her character, who has only a minimal perception of the reality in which she exists. The unexpected cuts to dreams within dreams, and the general theme of prostitution to cement romantic love, combine to make a very successful body for an interesting viewing experience.

Not Buñuel's best, yet Michel Piccoli is in his place and Mirbeau's book gives a hint of themes to come. However, I have decided to compare it with other adaptations in the future. At the very least, replacing Moreau with Léa Seydoux is more than acceptable. I also suffer from the decision to move the plot to the 1930s (which is hard to believe in because the sets utterly fail) because it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps the only reason is that the director chose this period because he remembered it and it was closer to him.