gudaulin

Have you ever seen a baseball player during a baseball game? I mean the moment when he attentively watches the pitcher's movement, carefully prepares the bat, and calculates every fraction of a second of his decisive hit - to place the ball, zooming at a terrifying speed, right in your crotch. That's the feeling I had after a few shots of this horror spectacle, which film fans honored on FilmBooster. Not only that but in the following minutes, it seemed that the batter, frustrated by an unsuccessful hit, ran toward me with the bat in hand and delivered a series of painful blows to my most sensitive areas. I have no words for what happened on the television screen - well, no decent words. The expressions that come to mind are usually used when a hammer falls on my little finger or when my foot slides into dog excrement. The absence of any logic in the film characters. A screenplay that could have only been created as a joke or a cruel trick by filmmakers on the audience. A police commando, to be sent on an extremely important mission that reeks of a huge disaster, consists of members whose stupidity surpasses all limits, they must have been cast in a global casting call. The inhabitants of the house affected by the epidemic scream, wildly swing their arms, and without exception, do the last thing that would come to mind when facing a real threat. The constant instructions to use cameras to document what is seen here lack any logic, although this doesn't matter because practically everything lacks logic here. However, this dreadful experience raises the question of how sane I was when I gave the first film a rating of 3 stars. I must have been slightly affected by dementia or influenced by some chemical. Such a decline in quality is not possible between two parts and practically the same crew. Overall impression: triple underscore zero.

There are movie enthusiasts who are capable of criticizing a war film for featuring a different type of tank, plane, or any weapon than the one used in a specific battle, but those things usually leave me unfazed. However, Morituri is a case of a film that was written by a screenwriter who knows very little about the realities of World War II, the style of warfare, and the real life of sailors at sea, and frankly, he doesn't even care. He writes a fictional adventure story that the director skillfully manages to bring to life and cast with famous actors of their time. The result satisfies many viewers, and they experience tension and cheer for the heroes. However, in some scenes, I found myself shaking my head, or to be more precise, my lips mostly twitched in a tolerant smile. Despite Marlon Brando's charisma and his high-standard performance, and Yul Brynner's arguably best performance of his career, I can't give the film more than 3 stars. Overall impression: 65%.

I would say that this is a typical representative of European art. American studios have the ability to grasp a phenomenon, reputation, famous historical figure, or legend and, in the best case, turn it into an interesting narrative that is communicative worldwide regardless of cultural differences. In the worst case, it turns into a pop-cultural sludge that can be sold to practically anyone. European creators, on the other hand, are often proud that their work is practically not consumable by a wider range of viewers. The creators of The Flying Dutchman want to tell the story of the birth of a Flemish legend, but legends are definitely not born this way. They emerge from a collective mass experience, whereas this game is actually an intimate matter of a few characters traversing the film. Although I usually have no trouble understanding a film story and its individual scenes and elements, here I didn't grasp a few things, not just because the creators intentionally left many things unspoken. For example, the motif of the rebels holding a giant head, which remains a memento of a distant tragedy, somehow escapes me. I understand that film characters don't always behave as I would imagine, but here the psychological motivation in several scenes is similar to the idea of a puppeteer and a soldier having sex in the middle of the Battle of Austerlitz. On the other hand, the film has many things that a film fan can appreciate. Excellent camera work, and thanks to the coproduction a very decent budget by European standards, which allows for the illusion of the 16th century. Some images create a sense of magical realism, the actors are fresh-faced yet of high quality, and the director took care in the casting to ensure that his vision of history is full of strangely looking characters - although personally I think he went too far and this collection of freaks could have been seen at most in a medieval madhouse. I see the overall result positively, despite the long duration and slow pace. I was not bored, but I cannot give the film more than 3 strong stars considering the aforementioned. Overall impression: 65%.

Iñárritu's debut Amores Perros once knocked me off my feet and I developed a special relationship and understanding with this Latin American director. None of his other films surpassed that debut, but I never gave Iñárritu less than 4 stars, simply because it wasn't necessary. I went into Birdman with a sense of certainty that I couldn't go wrong regardless of the positive reviews, yet after just ten minutes, I felt that I was missing the director's vision of the world this time. With every passing minute, my displeasure and rejection of what I saw grew. On the way back, I drove through red lights at intersections, scaring pedestrians on crosswalks with a devilish laugh. But that still didn't help; I had a perfectly ruined evening. If I had relied solely on emotions, it would have turned out even worse than a mere 2 stars, but I can't deny Iñárritu's formal filmmaking quality. I simply don't like theatrical, pretentious, and affected films. I avoid the term pseudo-intellectual because it is often used by ultra-right-wingers to label uncomfortable individuals, but the term pseudo-intellectual fits this film like a screw to a nut. A typical example of midcult, desperately pretending to have intellectual depth. Some time ago, a doctor diagnosed me with a throat infection and prescribed a treatment regimen. After completing it, I locked myself in the toilet for two sunsets and observed my stool to see if I was okay. I find Iñárritu's approach to be similar to that unpleasant activity of mine. If there's anything I can appreciate, it's Edward Norton's performance. His confident and spoiled theater star played with pleasure is the highlight of the film; this type of selfish jerk suits Norton perfectly. Emma Stone's presence was also nice. I anticipated the Academy Award nominations for her, and I think this kind of artistic torment and perspective suits her perfectly. Personally, I say - never again to this film... Overall impression: 40%.

An exceptionally strong cast and an opportunity to see acting legends who are no longer with us or whose faces are covered in wrinkles and whose hair is full of gray. Watching young Libuše Šafránková or loose Veronika Freimanová also warms the heart of every man. Why only two stars? Because as the years go by, I have shifted from a position where commedia dell'arte means nothing to me to a position where "I find it annoying." I don't like overacting, affectation, and nonsense. For me, this genre is simply outdated and ineffective. The two stars are truly only for the actors involved. After half an hour, I lost interest and gave up before the end. Overall impression: 40%.

Some movies really shouldn't have an ending. This film is brilliantly directed, with a sense of atmosphere and tension. As long as the screenwriter and director, here being the same person, keeps the audience on their toes and unsure of what's happening, the film works perfectly. However, when it starts revealing its cards, which happens at the latest during Sebastien's unexpected visit to the love nest, the love story quickly loses steam. The plot, or rather its resolution, is Hollywood-like and the film lost its charm for me. Overall impression: 60%.

"What about the glass?", asks the frontman of the Tango band in the main musical motif of the film, while Kachyňa, on the other hand, asks what to do with a life that has been diluted with so many compromises and concessions that it no longer brings joy. Kachyňa, for the second time shortly after A Good Light, presents a protagonist who is struggling with a mid-life crisis, combined this time with a clash with the world of pragmatic pragmatism, which his superior embraces, and an author's desire for honest work without compromises. It is true that I have seen better from Kachyňa, but after watching it several times I'm giving it an additional star. The second half of the 80s is reminiscent not only in the soundtrack but also in the overall mood of the film. The anger, helplessness, and aimlessness correspond to the feelings of many from that time. Moreover, Karel Heřmánek was experiencing the best period of his acting career at that time. Overall impression: 70%.

This is representative of a modern Eastern Asian crime film that shows the current face of Chinese pop culture. As far as the craftsmanship is concerned, I have no objections to it. A similar film could easily be made in an American studio with practically the same result. The action scenes are brilliantly shot, and I don't see any problem with that. But that cursed Eastern Asian tendency towards melodrama, starting with the choice of a sentimental musical motif and ending with tears on the detective's face, that's where I have a problem, and it's significant. Overall impression: 45%.

The creators of The Marathon apparently had a philosophy of giving us 2-in-1 when they offered two parallel stories from the last days of the war. Never mind that they didn't really fit together and both felt like they were directed by a different director and crew. The story of a young prisoner freed from prison, who manages to participate in the defense of Prague with a weapon during the four-day May uprising and find his fateful love, at least somewhat fits into the picture of Czech cinema of the 1960s, which relies on acting performances and the intimacy of the moment. The second storyline shows the victorious Soviet army "rushing to help Prague," and this storyline clearly has a propagandistic dimension and fits the face of the normalized cinema of the 1970s. Pathos, the tragedy of human sacrifice at the end of the war, the smiling faces of tired Soviet soldiers, and an endless column of military technology of the victorious army. It's transparent, and it doesn't offend me anymore because a film, no matter what it is, can at least humanize the face of the opponent and bring a smile to one's face in some scenes. On the other hand, this film definitely does not inspire any admiration from me. A great, or rather profound, film is something completely different and evokes different emotions. Overall impression: 50%.

In the last decades, it has become clear that the most faithful visitors to movie theaters and moviegoers in general are teenagers - often the only ones. Thus, what is offered there adapts to their taste as well. There are plenty of romantic love stories edited to fit their needs and expectations, and one can observe the trend of adults behaving like 17-year-old adolescents who refuse to grow up. Beautiful Girls portrays fresh thirty-year-olds who may stumble in their love relationships and nostalgically look back at their adolescent past, but they act appropriately for their age. Surprisingly, it is a mature film about friendship and the challenges of romantic coexistence, not outstanding but likable, trustworthy, and functional even in its details. Additionally, it features a truly strong star-studded cast. Overall impression: 80%.