POMO

Seeing Jaws in the cinema and, paradoxically, at a greater distance from the screen, put it in a different light for me. It made me more aware of the overall composition of the picture, which was masterfully crafted even in this early stage of Spielberg’s career (that is also true of his even earlier Duel). Jaws, however, is a pure film delight also due to the depiction of the characters and their relationships, which brings an element of storytelling into this film with a one-line premise. Not to mention the brilliant building of tension. Imagine being the first in the history of cinema to make an A-grade film about a murderous shark on an unknown small-town beach where you can’t use the potential of any locally known attractions and the only things you have are an old boat and a mechanical shark, and making such a compact, playful and, at the same time, scary movie that entertains with its every scene. Steven nailed it. But he wasn’t completely alone in this – he had great support from John Williams, and thank God for it, on behalf of Spielberg’s entire filmography.

On the Roof is a sensitive, multi-layered take on two different characters and their hesitant friendship laced with subtle humor. Mádl can tell stories about people just like a seasoned filmmaking veteran. The film also feature the excellent Švehlík and a pleasing absence of product placement in places where there could have been some. Just do not expect the ending to be the emotional punch to the gut that made Pojedeme k moři an unforgettable film. In its second half, On the Roof takes the path of (intentionally and artfully) deconstructing the audience’s expectations.

The ending doesn’t exactly make perfect sense in the context of the characters’ previous motivations, but after all the dark, rationally incomprehensible lupine occultism of the Alaskan wilderness, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that the course of the relatively long, roughly drawn story is continuously exciting and captivatingly atmospheric with constant surprising plot twists. I was drawn into it, just like in the case of Wind River, in which, however, everything had a logical place and the plot was precisely taken to a more coherent and thoughtful ending.

Another attempt at combining horror and social drama, sitting in a corner in the shadow of Darabont’s The Mist. The constant alternation of the two different time planes becomes narratively monotonous after an hour or so. Somehow, with its “relationship content” and all of the clichés it tends to use, it becomes very unlikely that the film may in any way be surprising or bring something new into its subject matter, which resembles that of some recent genre movies. The intriguing premise with a great start fails to fulfill the potential of a decent genre event, leaving only a safe, mainstream drama about the importance of sticking together with a few scary scenes, children at risk and a pleasant Sandra Bullock. It’s not that I didn’t watch it with interest; I just consider it a waste of a great potential.

Mr. Shyamalan put a lot effort into this one. He works consistently with the dramatic potential of the three main characters and their deepening interactions, which bring them closer to one another in the same house. The story escalates and entertains by exploring and uncovering the essence of the brilliant theme (the magical idea of comic book heroes existing in real life) that he created 19 years ago and followed up on three years ago. As we’re accustomed to with him, he did it with abundant visual creativity and thematic references, while making two different points in the climax. But despite the fact that everything fits together in the first point and becomes conspiratorial in the right way, as well as original and bold when considering the viewer’s expectations, I’m not quite sure I wanted it that way. Not to mention the second point, which simply should not be there at all, because the movie absolutely doesn’t build up to it.

Without the necessary dramatic drive, The Mule is a lukewarm cup of afternoon tea. Interesting thanks only to Eastwood’s personality and his old man of questionable character who, as a husband, dad and grandpa, tries to improve the relationships in his family. This level does not bring forth anything powerful, much less original, and the thriller plotline focused on smuggling looks nicely oldschool, but it doesn’t captivate. The villains are not scary enough, and we are not that worried about our “hero” being imperiled by them. Maybe because almost no one in his story would really miss him.

Set in a green rainforest (and on a beach), Annihilation is a more intellectual version of The Thing. It has a rather mainstream theme with a slightly B-movie nature but interesting ideas, escalated into a hitherto unseen close encounter of the third kind, fascinating by its far-reaching imagination and a provocative need to find as many answers as possible in it. The final scene is a return to genre rules, but it turns out well. Garland is not a hitmaker, but rather a hard-core sci-fi filmmaker. While Arrival was about the relativity of the perception of time, Annihilation is about the relativity of biological lifeforms. Totally different, but in both cases brilliant, innovative sci-fi works, ambitious in their content.

A bunch of well-known actors in a surprisingly predictable story that - while you watch it in the hope that it eventually happens - does not deliver any surprises. The emotions of the desire for revenge work in the viewer, however, so it’s definitely not boring. I would just expect a broader story/range of thought from the whole thing. And somehow I can’t see Harrelson as the ultimate bad guy, even though he’s trying hard to act like one. For me, he will always be a stoned, chilled-out bohemian.

The final shot of Ama Dablam, the most beautiful mountain in the Himalayas, which is used several times in the movie, confirms that the filmmakers wanted above all to pay homage to mountains, the majestic works of our planet’s greatest artist – Mother Nature. It is therefore a pity that they borrow well-known footage from hit sports movies (The Art of Flight) and other documentary series and attempt to make the movie a retrospective “best of” (including pointing out every possible use of the mountains by civilization) rather than contenting themselves with piano music and the thoughts spoken by Dafoe. While some of those could have been written by any of us viewers, others lift the film to the philosophical heights that are its ambitious aim.

National Parks Adventure offers a quick look into several American national parks, with demonstrations of sports for which they are suitable (dry tooling, cycling, ice climbing), as well as a nicely conceived reminder that the term “national park” was coined by nature lover John Muir and introduced as a legal concept by his friend and kindred spirit, US President Theodore Roosevelt. The film is visually beautiful – the larger the screen, the better the experience.