Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Fimfárum 2 (2006)
The new generation of Czech animators vs The veterans
This humorous puppet-movie is divided into four episodes (tales). All the original tales were written by one author - Jan Werich, but each tale was filmed by another director. Balej and Klimt represent the "greenhorns" of Czech animation, Pojar and Pospisilova are the "vets" here. Interesting fact is, that there is a huge difference in work of the older directors and the younger ones. The Czech animation veterans made brilliant and juicy stories, whereas the young directors tried to bore us almost to death.
My favorite story is "Palecek" - directed by Mr.Pojar, art-concept masterfully made by Czech artist Pavel Koutsky. This story has wonderful sense of humor, funny 2D sequences, lot of wise crack and everything works together. If you want a real laugh, wait for this episode! 10/10
"Tri sestry a jeden prsten" - made by Mrs.Pospisilova has also absolutely delightful artistic concept (the artist - Petr Pos is well known from short film "Az opada listi z dubu", which was a part of Fimfarum 1). The story is well focused on the point. Juicy and funny... It's the traditional old school of Czech animation. 9/10
"More, strycku, proc je slane?" has a good atmosphere, but the story is filmed at an average. I personally dislike the puppets from this film - they all have silly faces, every figure looks like an idiot. Those "idiotic" puppets were made by the director himself. Balej wants to be funny at all cost, but I'm more or less immune to his attempts for a joke... 5/10
Klimt's film "Hrbaci z Damasku" looks like it was made under the time pressure. The main humorous point is completely lost (why???), the story is long, boring and lacks ending. The end of this film feels like the story was longer, but the end was lost somewhere in the cutting room. I like the art work of Martin Velisek, but this time it was a bit shoddy. For example: the desert town is just one big house, no people in the streets, no camels or other animals, no extra puppets. Klimt's and Velisek's cooperation has much better result in Fimfarum 1. 5/10
Conclusion: Pojar's and Pospisilova's stories are absolutely brilliant (both veteran directors have more humor and juice than the younger ones).
Operace Silver A (2007)
Inexcusable violation of remembrance of Czech paratroopers
Alfred Bartos, the leader of the Czech paratroopers, one of the main characters in Operation Silver A is characterized in this movie like a disgusting drunkard, messing with all the women in the story (including wife of the man, who is actually hiding him from the Nazis!). In fact, he was described by his real life co-troopers like a man of honor, knowing the Operation means a certain death to him. One of his war-friends wrote that the Czech paratroopers were ready to die for him in the combat!
Look, I don't like deificiation of the heroes, but looking at the problem with sober eyes...This movie stinks! And it stinks a lot! It is based on a true story, but it has nothing to do with the truth. All the paratroopers (hidden within the Protectorate) are acting like morons, which behavior would lead to their immediate revelation. No one believes, that the Allies would send an old drunk as a leader of such important mission. Also the members of secret resistance are sometimes very unreasonable. The scene, where the resistance members are talking about their activities with other people in the street, looks like it has been removed from a parody. Also the paratroopers would never do anything that could bring their helpers to any problem (a problem with paratroopers meant death).
This war movie describes the real war analogous to the "'Allo 'allo" serial. But the "Silver A" dramatization is dangerous, because the story pretends to be true.
You may find Strach's "Silver A" interesting, only if you imagine the secret resistance members like people who in general say: Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once...
S certy nejsou zerty (1985)
If you think there is no fun in the burning hell, you are wrong
The unusually enjoyable story (about a pauper messing with devils) seems to be located somewhere in late baroque times and it's not just a particular love story. It's very funny indeed, but also deeper thoughts can be revealed behind the lines. The creators keep questioning about the power of money. And the human society is sometimes more evil then the Hell itself. But don't worry, you don't have to think about the hidden meanings if you don't want to this film was made mainly for entertainment.
The creators also designed a completely new view at the hell, its rules and its hierarchy. The conception of the love story is unusual as well. How many fairly tales with a love-triangle do you know? If you are expecting more than just an ordinary tale, you want to have fun and maybe something more, you are at the right address.
I don't like giving 1 or 10 stars, but this particular piece deserves 10, no question about it.
Cetnické humoresky (1997)
A Humorous serial which is not a bit humorous indeed
4 reasons why I'm not a fan:
1. The serial is called "Humoresky", what means it should be "humorous" (Ok, I don't expect a monstrous comedy, but just a little bit laugh should be included due to the name). In fact, there is no real humor or just a shadow of a memorable joke or a funny scene (if you're intelligent enough not to consider scene where the cops are throwing spaghetti into the air, raging inside the dining room like a bunch of silly old morons, to be funny). Now, forget about witty dialogs or wise crack.
2. Although the episodes are well stuffed with historical equipment (cars, costumes, guns) there is a complete lack of old-time atmosphere. To be honest ANY atmosphere is missing at all. The story is filmed so badly, that the authentic historical stuff is completely useless and total impression equals zero. Watch the Poirot series to know how the old time illusion should look like.
3. Some smaller parts are played by actors from Brno. Their "artistic performances" are frequently very poor especially women acting is sometimes unbelievably pathetic.
4. Arazim - the main character, makes absolutely no psychological progress. Plus the character is not very jolly at all. His actions are always predictable and his mood is always bad. Don't know how many times he said to his companions something like: "Guys, stop this, it's not funny" (He is usually right, the sidekick cops are really NOT very funny).
Conclusion: 3 stars, deserved mainly for heroic fight with the low budget
The Fourth Protocol (1987)
20% of the book, but still watchable
There is always a dilemma for the spectator who knows the literary work: the book vs the film. I understand that it is almost impossible to convert the whole book with its complexity to the movie, but still some important moments from the Fosyth's novel are missing (and most of the story features are grossly simplified). However it's still an ordinary spy-game film, well directed, with good casting, not reaching over the other ones produced in late 80'. Violental and sexual content was added for effect. The female character (Irina) appeared in the story only for such purpose (but I'm not blaming the creators for that - there has to be at least one female in let's say "bigger role", don't you think?).
If you know the book, don't expect a bigger excitement. If you don't know the book, don't expect a bigger excitement either...
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
A shadow of a deeper thought can not be found in the desert
-The film lacks a scent of humor or even a political reference, which should be expected due to the Motive of victimized inhabitants of the desert. Very disappointing in this way. -I would not call this "movie" a horror. It is not frightening, it's all about g-o-r-e and disgusting "zombie-like" monsters crawling the desert. -The characters are so silly, that you can't care about them. Typical genre clichés are used here, but ain't funny any more.
In conclusion: disgusting violent scenes are not a reason for seeing this. And because there is nothing but such scenes, the movie is not worth seeing at all. (If you're a Romero-lover, avoid at all cost!)
Qi jian (2005)
Highly overrated garbage
The story must have been made by someone with a half brain. The intention of the story-writer was to make a hot-action movie full of oriental mystery new and new and new dramatic events turning up. Instead of being dramatical, the story changes to an empty and boring filler between poorly filmed action scenes. The dialogs are so poor, that they seemed to be worked out by the actors during the shots. The only thing I found positive is the conception of some side-kick characters. Unfortunately, the main villains as well as all the "Fantastic good guys" are flat, banal and unimpressive. If you like "Hero" or "Musa", be sure to miss this crap!
Buy yourself a wooden sword and go practice into the woods instead of watching this! I am sure, you'll get better adventure.
Almost truly: The End of the World Movie
This FlimFlam movie - movie with nonsense story, overcrowded with weak and exchangeable characters - is a perfect illustration of filmmakers's junk. Almost whole film takes place at the sea, the spectator is frequently confused by changing crews on the ships, bud nothing REALLY happens there. The plot is so incredibly weak that the characters are basically solving the question "Who is the Captain here, or Who is the Captain there..." and that's all. After 45 minutes of solving the same things again and again, the film becomes absolutely boring and the bore lasts till the end.
The screenplay is full of flat and banal characters. Everyone is "the commander" there, it does not matter who says "set sail". You can replace them one by each other. Even Jack is sometimes "lost" between other characters. Presence of such enormous number of redundant characters in the story is ridiculous.
In comparison with previous parts, Pirates III is a big disappointment. 168 minutes being totally bored...that is what I really call The End of the World.
Mazaný Filip (2003)
Marhoul's so-called comedy was a little bit embarrassing attempt to remake successful theatre play into the movie. The play itself might have been really funny at the theatre... but ain't working on-screen. Some of the jokes are brilliant, but most of it can be considered for childish. And the same duality can be found in acting. I cannot get rid of the strange feeling, that Tomas Hanak (Filip) was READING (not telling) his narrative parts. Pavel Liska (Charlie Brown) totally embarrassed himself as a "wanna-be-so-funny" idiot, speaking with an idiotic voice and making silly faces. His little parts made me feel down. On the other hand, other actors were really good - Vilma Cibulkova as the femme fatale with drinking problems or the psychotic director of the asylum wonderfully performed by Milan Steindler. Really positive and also cute were cameo appearances of Czech artists Frantisek Skala and Jaroslav Rona. In conclusion: 4/10 is a good rating for film with no real story.