MarketaN

The first valuable thing about this film is that it is an original for-film-musical, not a Broadway adaptation as it might seem.

The music is created by an amazing duo Pasek and Paul who got on the top after La La Land´s success. It was a good promotion strategy to release soundtrack before film premiere because the music is great and catchy and resonates. People follow these two and they followed the music before the film.

What is even better is that it works with the visual as well. There is space for choreography. Logically, while giving space to musical numbers, there is not that much left for dialogs and storytelling. Creators succeeded to start with the main character´s childhood and finish in the middle age by using visually nicely done shortcuts and time bridges. It is a musical in its pure form.

What was missed was at least some space for the supporting characters, all the misfits from the concert who were used only as dancers which sort of spoiled the main thought. Even Zendaya´s and Zack Efron´s characters did not get much space if it was not about their romance. I missed knowing how did Anne and her brother learned their trapeze art or who is the girl with albino skin and hair often shown in frame.

Probably no one else than Jackman could be chosen for this character. It seemed he felt maybe the best in his part from all the characters he had portraited before.

The film is about P. T. Barnum who was a great entertainer but also someone who brought wild animals to circus and generally was quite terrifying person from what is known, not glamorous as Jackman´s performance at all. It is totally fine because this is a film and film can do whatever it wants to make a good result. The movie used obviously digital techniques for visualizing the animals mostly and cannot be blamed for anything of course. But in that moment Hollywood again served as a tool for misrepresentation, cannot help the feeling. It is made-up story based on a couple real facts, not a biography, so it was not necessary to stick to P. T. Barnum´s name and celebrate him. But that is just a personal note.

The movie targets emotions big time! And I encourage everyone to go through the sentimental experience simply because it is done so well!

The King Arthur legend and Charlie Hunnam are a tempting combination. As a result, this film was not disappointment at all. Even though there are many bad reviews on the Internet. Here are proves that King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is a great example of a film-craft.

The piece works on the principle of contrast, which Guy Richie handles very well. It combines old looking costumes and setting with more modern soundtrack, quick tempo, sophisticated editing. The whole movie has a rhythm. It is far from obvious safe way movie makers often tend to fall back.

The editing in time is something to highlight. Creators work chronologically with the wider story but get into time loops with smaller story sequences. The collages of flashbacks and flash forwards are challenging for viewer's attention and keep him entertained. It is often funny in slightly absurd way while using clearly film techniques to create humor.

It leaves out all needless sentiment and balances Arthur's character. Luckily, here is no exaggerated romantic line, just a small gentle one, not interrupting the plot.

So, why King Arthur again? Let's face it, all movie themes come back to theaters over and over again. The market is crowded. This film encourages to use film techniques in its repletion. On the other hand, it is not the example when technology is all what the film is about. It is balanced and serves its purpose here. This movie is about the story but also about the art how to tell the story.

I looked forward to this show since its pilot in 2015. Mostly because I am interested in this famous couple. But I must confess that I was bored the first half of the first season. One episode has only half an hour and it still seemed to be unfulfilled. I almost stopped watching it but the other half somehow caught my attention.

The mise-en-scene balances showing glamorous era with realistic depiction. It is believable.

It is adaptation of a book focused on Zelda's story. It is Zelda's point of view. She is the heroine. But unfortunately character of F. S. Fitzgerald is depicted as a villain. For me it was not good choice to show F. Scott Fitzgerald as such a negative character. In society is big question about their relationship, who were they actually. So in the story I would appreciate more questionable representation instead of such black and white characters. At least based on season one. Maybe creators change their direction if season two takes place.

Christina Ricci is fairly good choice for this role. On the other hand, David Hofflin is just hardly believable. Maybe it is problem of casting in the first place. Supporting woman roles are delightful, little caricatures of people of that era.

For now, the show did not mean waste of time for me but neither a miracle.

La La Land is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I felt grateful for its existence while watching it. The very first scene immediately brings joy and I haven't stopped paying attention since then. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling have great on-screen chemistry and are incredibly good at their job. It is technologically very well done movie. I enjoyed the long shots. Maybe it looks kitschy at first sight but actually many techniques of art-film are used there. It is a nostalgic movie but on the other side it redefines the whole thing into modern age. Creators managed to give both ends to viewers: the wanted one and also the real-right one. Perfect...

It is not easy to describe this film. I could much better imagine the story and more importantly the idea in a book where a reader can better work with his own imagination. The plot and the theme connected to the places is more about a feeling and impression than understanding. Even I do not usually need film to be literal, certainly not in a case of similar underground peace of work, I think it struggled with expressing the main ideas. I blame a little bit the script itself. Simply put, I had difficulties to orientate and it precluded me to enjoy it. The character of Anna's father was presented just badly. And I am not saying it is the actor's fault. Only really good thing is the created atmosphere and visual style. Also the performances of Vladimir Polivka and Jan Cina are quite respectable. And it is shame because it had a potential.

This was highly anticipated film. The director didn't succeeded in fulfilling the expectations of audience and not at all film-critics. Still this picture does not belong to the category of completely useless pictures that you wouldn't enjoy.

The art design including costumes, scenery, stylization, camera operating and everything made to satisfy the eye is perfectly done with detail. The topic for it's self must be the house of the Sharp family. The building has its own spirit, which the characters itself unfortunately lack.

And characters is the next important thing to talk about. There is quite a top actors basis. Mia Wasikowska representing a young Victorian woman absolutely fits. Tom Hiddleston as the wanted perfect man with dark secrets is a natural choice. And finally the amazing Jessica Chastain showed a perfect performance as the evil sister. She nearly stole the whole spectacle for herself. But still it does not work very well. The main problem is that the relationship between Edith and Thomas is not believable. They lack ''chemistry''. Some converging and strongly intimate scenes are missing. The other problem is Edith Cushing herself. When arriving at the house, she suddenly changes from an intelligent emancipated woman to classic scared horror virgin type who needs a protection and loses a good deal of sympathy.

The story itself is predictable, and so does not need to be focused on. Maybe the reason is that Guillermo del Torro planned to shoot this picture a long time ago and he simply lost the connection with the topic and focused on technical stuff. On the other hand, this is an opportunity to see a pure cliché, not meant in a bad way, horror- drama movie with all its attributes and great visual quality. The treatment with sounds for increasing the tension is comparable to The Woman in Black (2012).

It does not deserve to be strongly criticized nor praised, but since I'm fan of all three actors and Guillermo del Toro, I must say I enjoyed it quite a lot.

My English is not perfect, please be tolerant.

I would start from the visual side, which seems pretty untrustworthy. The first car chase is simply wrong. The whole editing is heady, sometimes even poorly done. I think the main problem is that the cut follows the action. It misses the right continuity of shots and good impression of the action on screen. Some shots are imaginative and monitoring through hidden cameras is not a bad idea. I appreciate this combined technique and occasional inventiveness of camera.

Concerning the performances of actors, Ethan Hawke is doing whatever he can. The character of Selena Gomez is to me poorly written. And she really does not show herself as a good actress. This character really can not beat my favorite Lisbeth Salander from the Millennium series.

Film is predictable and predictability it goes also for music and sounds. And I'm not a technical expert, but I would say that a lot of things in this movie are not feasible as the film shows. Screenplay acts as if it was written by a schoolboy.

It is quite dreadful that because this film was smashed so many things. But also I understand that many people not so much as critical as me can like this movie.