DaViD´82

Eight hard day’s nights (i.e. eight seasons over the course of nine years) for Jack Bauer spanning almost fifteen “series" years. 24 has countless flaws (imbalance between separate episodes both in terms of quality and screenplay, sometimes needlessly dragged-out), but in terms of the conspiracy/action series genre it is incomparable. True, it is in essence pure B-grade, but mostly a darn high quality B which, in the better seasons, beats other regular action series hands down. The advantage with 24 is that the creators push back the limits of just how far non-cable TV productions can go. The characters as such aren’t particularly interesting (apart from Jack, of course), but they mostly catch your interest thanks to the actors. Basically the biggest mistake is that each episode is divided into thirds. Bauer in the field, political machinations and what goes on at CTU headquarters. And the CTU bit soon starts to get boring (and later actively annoying; the dialogs in this part of the episodes are a real “experience"), the political intrigues are sometimes interesting (in season one) and sometimes not (in later seasons) and so the Jack storyline is the only one to maintain the quality level in all days; whether it’s over-the-top or not. This certainly isn’t the best series of all time, but it is an above-average affair that maintains some potential even in later seasons. Day 1 4/5: Compared to the rest of Bauer’s days, this is very “raw" and unpolished. It isn’t about anything big, and remains on a personal level. Unlike the later seasons, it relies heavily on the last few episodes, without them it is merely a solid affair, sometimes too full of cliché. Personally, I came to appreciate this season only after some time. Day 2 5/5: The best balanced season in terms of quality, pace and story; it works wonderfully as a whole and none of the episodes stick out or fade into the background. It’s the first day where Jack’s dark side starts to emerge and, mainly thanks to the creators, this time the story doesn’t lead up to one final climax, but has a series of “sub-plots" that take up 3-4 episodes. Just a shame about the dumb storyline involving Kim and the boring two first episodes. Day 3 4/5: Too bad that this season wasn’t shorter by a couple of episodes. There are no downright weak episodes in this season, but around half way through, they could have done a lot of cutting. Certainly still above-average quality and several memorable moments (how one of the main protagonists dies). Day 4 4/5: Basically a restart without most of the original cast and overall the approach in this season is a little different; this time we know who the main villain is from the beginning; the entire day is treated as one long chain of action episodes without any significant twists. Definitely excellent and, luckily, before it starts repeating itself like a scratched record, in the last third the creators kick off with another storyline that results in a wonderful finale that ties up loose ends to close 24 in style. Day 5 3/5: A splendid and bold beginning to the season, lots of excellently developed themes, ideas and twists. More than one episode ingrain themselves in your memory. Despite all the pluses, this season works in terms of individual instances rather than as a whole. Day 6 2/5: This season suffers from the same ailments as the last one. Separate fragments of it are often great, but it doesn’t hold together much as a whole. But still, it takes off intriguingly. Especially the last ten minutes or so of episode four are probably the best that 24 has come up with so far. Unfortunately, it also all too obviously borrows from itself. In fact, it’s occasionally started to get my goat. If it weren’t for the excellent beginning and decent ending, I would have gone even lower with the score. This is due to the creators trying out whether it would work even without Jack and so he is missing for the whole middle section. Which is a suicidal mistake because the only reason that this series hasn’t fallen apart yet is Bauer... Before his “week at work" was over, Jack managed to find time for a quick trip to Africa to make a feature movie24: Redemption 3/5. Day 7 1/5: The first episode is a parody of itself and is seriously boo standard, but Jack’s storyline soon pulls itself together and now it looks like one of the best in this season. The problem is that the president storyline seems to have remained in the land of boo. However, half way through the season the wtf attack on the White House and what follows is Boo City, D.C. To preserve my positive attitude toward the good old 24 that I love, I have decided to stop watching. Damn it! Day 8 4/5: In the end I didn’t manage to stop watching and so I put on the last season. The rumors about a return of quality do not lie; Day 8 really goes back to grass roots. Perhaps a little big, because all the storylines and suspenseful moments simply recycle the best moment of past and better seasons (mostly season two and four). But it works, flows by nicely, doesn’t come up with any particular surprises, but is a solid average. But then the moment arrives: about two-thirds through the season everything turns out well, all threats have been eliminated and a new story begins. A story that has obviously been collecting dust in a drawer, waiting for the order from above to get it out and use it. No threats, no terrorists, the CTU shenanigans are sidelined; it’s a return to the personal level of Day 1. Gripping, wonderfully thought through and even emotionally fully functional. In other words, ingredients that have been lacking in 24 for years now. Yep, an ending just as it should be. An ending that makes you forget all the crap you saw in the worse seasons and also that the ending should have come a good while ago; the only thing that matters is that they leave some (exceedingly) loose ends for a potential follow-up. It needs a definitive period... You know what kind.

One book, two almost identical adaptations and lengths, but such different experiences. Mann’s version has William Petersen, Joan Allen and a much (but really much) better filmed scene with the tiger on its side. But it’s only a “Mann classic" in the scenes with silent panoramas of the rainy, nighttime city and at moments when the action is embellished with just the right songs. But it’s all slowed down by scenes that drag on unnecessarily, when they should have finished on the cutting room floor, and also zero suspense. Ratner’s version on the other hand has Hollywood parameters. So slightly (but not much) better tempo, attractive production design, sort of signs of suspense, the intro scene and the excellent casting of absolutely all roles apart from those mentioned above. So both movies made it into the “good movie" bracket, but not an inch higher. P.S.: Review copied intentionally.

An incredibly overstuffed CGI-packed B-movie of the guilty-pleasure rank. In itself, that’s not bad, but it’s very unfitting for a Bond movie.

The beautiful silence of the mountains... Disrupted only by the rampage of a heroic climber in Stallone's unmistakable non-actor performance. I do not hide the fact that it is in a way a guilty pleasure affair, but even so the qualities of Cliffhanger cannot be denied.

Nothing special, but watchable compared to most films with a similar theme. Stallone is terrible, but since he's playing an American who's never played soccer, this may be the performance of his life, because you really don't believe his goalie for a second.

After watching the theatrical version a few times, I was convinced that, after the excellent Fellowship, The Lord of the Rings movie saga was doing a head dive before it got a chance to take off properly. It was indisputably a strong experience, but too obviously to be taken at face value without anything hidden “underneath the surface". “Merely" perfect craftsmanship and “just" a good movie which, in this case, is too darn little. It’s void of emotion and some of the changes leave you speechless; not even Michael Bay comes anywhere near this. Add to that unbalanced pace and overall incoherence. But then I saw the Special Edition. It’s incredible how this version, which lasts 45 minutes longer, has far better and more balanced pace and, thanks to added and extended scenes, it gains a completely new dimension. These are two different movies in terms of both tone and quality.

The spirit of the original didn’t exactly remain intact. But things like the drastic truncation, changes of character characteristics etc. can’t be criticized much… They are completely understandable. Especially when Peter Jackson’s presented his vision on the screen where, even though it isn’t flawless, the positives heavily overweighed the negatives. The Special Edition is even slightly better, but, unlike with the other episodes, it doesn’t change either the overall character or tone of the movie. It just adds some new scenes for fans and so it doesn’t really matter if you don’t get to see it. Which is the complete opposite of The Two Towers.

The American version of the greatest Czech, Jára Cimrman. And he runs too. He runs a lot. Forrest’s mom always told him to do this and that. My Mom always told me that this is a darn good movie. And I absolutely agree with my Mom. This is the kind of a movie which whenever you start watching you always say to yourself “I’ll watch just this one scene, oh, and then this one and…" And you end up after watching one scene after the other till once again you find yourself at the end of the movie. It’s moving, funny and sad like almost nothing else (especially if you, like me, believe that the child isn’t his) brilliant acting (not only from Hanks) and unforgettable scenes in every other minute of footage. But what am I saying, in every minute of footage.

Can humor go hand in hand with slowly built suspense and a thick, disconcerting atmosphere? Can you combine a sci-fi movie about invasion with questions of faith and destiny? Isn’t there an unwritten rule that “the dog never dies"? If Shyamalan had come up with this concept a decade later, everybody would have laughed at him. But he came up with it at a time when he was unarguably still at his creative zenith and managed to concentrate his talents on making one of the top thrillers of the beginning of the twenty-first century. It has just one weak spot: the very end when he proves once and for all whether or not he was one of those people who believes/hopes that everything happens for a specific reason. I’m not one of them and so in such a well-thought out movie, which to a certain extent Signs is, I felt that the ending (but not necessarily the overall message) was really unsatisfying and, to a certain extent, cheap. If it had been less ambitious and made do with just three (?) days of the first contact through the eyes of a regular family, it would have been more than enough for a good movie.

After seeing the first showing on the day of the premiere, without any prior information this really was a powerful and utterly unforgettable experience. Paradoxically, unlike other Shyamalan movies, this is only watchable twice. After that it just doesn’t work. The Sixth Sense lacks what is to be found in Unbreakable for instance, which reveals newer and newer layers every time you watch it again. The actors, especially Osment, are absolutely convincing and also there is no sense in singing the praises of Night’s directing, which is perfect in every respect. The same applies to the atmosphere. Anyhow, I reiterate that the first time you watch it is an unforgettable experience (but maybe not anymore, because everybody knows what happens even if they haven’t seen it), and so I have no choice but to give it a full set of stars.