D.Moore

It's really a children's film first and foremost, and unlike many other animated films it doesn't offer much to adults, so I think it's pointless to go through the inaccuracies and count the mistakes. If nothing else, one can just simply watch Dinosaur, because the production design is good and James Newton Howard's music is beautiful. I would like to highlight the Czech dubbing, which has a much more interesting cast than the original one (Jiri Langmajer, Jaroslav Satoranský, Květa Fialová...).

Some call it a tribute or a farewell to Peter Sellers, some simply rude panning. I'm one of those others who can do without Edwards' dance on Sellers' fresh grave. I don't deny that I like to watch Clouseau's unused or extended scenes from previous episodes, and that they amuse me (starting a fire - fires, actually - in the office, getting out of the elevator, eternally resisting something with a karate chop), but the fewer they are over time, the harder it is to connect them in any meaningful way. When these scenes run out about halfway through the film, the plane with Clouseau "disappears" and a tragedy begins, full of reminiscing characters and repeated, familiar scenes. It's all horribly messy and what does it matter that old familiar faces appear - it all looks morbid and vulgar to me. The tribute to Sellers' most famous character could have been just the cut sequence in the closing credits, there was no need for such a patchwork beginning with a silly dedication to "Peter, the one and only Clouseau" and ending with a callback to Curse of the Pink Panther (which I'd rather not see).___P.S. Even the opening credits were done by different people this time and it is unfortunately evident.

On the DVD cover it says: "All it takes is two ideas - a contract without a signature and a deputy director of the bank who becomes the boss for a while. This is the basis for a great comedy full of great gags, unexpected plots and denouements." That's all I need. I saw this comedy for the very first time today and I really liked the fact that I didn't really know anything about it and could only wait to see what would happen in the next scene, where it was all going... I have to praise the imaginative script with a perfect point, as well as Pierre Richard's performance (the toilet, chair, bathtub etudes and the final action on stage are among the best he has ever done on the silver screen) and Zidi's reliable direction with a perfect sense of wit. If only there wasn't that "joke" with the cackling seagull...

I would certainly expect more surprises from a movie about magicians, rather than just another predictable story in which what has happened in so many stories before happens, and which is saved mainly by the cast. Because the actors are perfect in The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, especially the insanely funny (and entertainingly insane) Jim Carrey. Unlike Carell and Buscemi (they are good, yes, and they are funny), Carrey plays something he has probably never played before - a completely unpredictable nutter who is unparalleled in our galaxy. He wasn’t even as crazy in The Mask as he is here, and most of the film's funniest moments were given to him in the script. I'm not saying that the writers did away with the other characters, they just didn't make them half as interesting. That’s too bad. Three and a half.

I knew about as much about Watergate as you can read in the first two sentences of the official text of the distributor. I thought that would be enough for me to watch the movie, but it wasn't. All the President's Men threw one name after another at me, after half an hour I still knew my way around, but after an hour not at all, and I had no idea who was with whom, for whom or against whom... Before the end, things became clearer, but I still felt like a lost child in a black forest, and the ending seemed to be completely missing. Or was I just dreaming? Anyway, I can't deny the film an impressive atmosphere and believable performances (I really liked the editor played by Jason Robards). When I learn more about Watergate from somewhere, I'll be happy to watch the film again. So far, I give it three and a half stars.

Will Ferrell once again plays the same character he played perhaps only in Stranger Than Fiction, an overly unhealthily confident jerk whose center of the universe is himself. This time, however, besides being stupid, he's also really mean, and I didn't like that very much, because even though he was mean in a rather funny way at times, he still only made me laugh with two fist punches (I don't want to give it away). I liked Zach Galifianakis better (but I'm not sure that was always the intention) and John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd were excellent. The ending is a great pity which, compared to the previous rampage, seemed somehow exhausted.

Anyone who liked the first Planes will have no problem with the second (and anyone who didn't like it probably won't watch the second film, right?). I was a bit worried at first, but after about fifteen boring minutes the plot moved to the firefighter's base and the real spectacle began. Technically everything is perfect. The scenes have swing and momentum, they are often dramatic to the point of suspense, and the digital flames, smoke and water look real. The various jokes were also good, and I really liked the details like the little balsa airplanes nesting in the forest or the deer that look like forestry tractors. Don't be so strict.

I don't think that the bar for humor in Revenge of the Pink Panther has gone down significantly, quite the opposite. This film seems to me even better than the third installment The Return. Everything important is in place, and Clouseau uses the disguises I love him most in here (especially as the Chinese man and the plump Godfather are not to be missed) and we get to meet their maker, the once Superintendent Dreyfus gives a sensational eulogy, Cato destroys more in Hong Kong than the inspector himself, Dyan Cannon's charm cannot be overlooked, and Henry Mancini heard during the finale. It’s too bad that this Panther is the last one Sellers lived to see. Blake Edwards could have forgiven himself the subsequent money grab.

Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg are a great duo, and that's one of the many things that went right in 2 Guns. Among other pluses I include the script, which mixes rewarding humor, suspense and surprise and although it sometimes teeters on the tricky edge of over-complication, it doesn't overwhelm. The other actors are also excellent, especially Bill Paxton and Edward James Olmos, and the whole thing looks and flows beautifully, so what more could you ask for? The part that starts with the kidnapping of a Mexican gangster, continues with a car chase and ends with a fist fight (in and out of cars) was probably my favorite part.

A very high quality Dostoyevsky in Brno, full of great acting performances, above all of which, however, looms the flawless Stanislav Zindulka as the senile Prince Gavrily. I can imagine that another actor could have played this character no less impressively, but the result might not have been so deeply human, evoking sympathy and compassion at the same time - in short, everything perfectly blended. Stanislav Zindulka has done it and we can thank him for it, for it is the magically confused prince who is the only source of humor and lightness that is needed like salt in this suffocating and chilling satire. Like his story about meeting Beethoven: "Yes, we were very good friends. His nose was always covered with tobacco, he was so ridiculous." - "Beethoven?" - "Yes, yes, Beethoven. After all, it is quite possible that it was some other German. There are a lot of Germans there."