gudaulin

I am not an expert on Wes Anderson's work, and his film Bottle Rocket is only the second film of his that I have had the opportunity to see. I would say that Anderson shoots in an entertaining way, and works with exaggeration, irony, and elements of grotesque. However, while I consider his The Grand Budapest Hotel to be a mature film, where everything relates to everything else and ultimately works, with Bottle Rocket I can sense a certain unfinishedness and inexperience - after all, he made it at the beginning of his career. The potential was certainly much greater than the result. I liked the details, but as a whole, Bottle Rocket was a loss in my opinion. Overall impression: 45%.

In the end, I'll give it 3 stars, but just barely. I expected that Year of the Devil would have a much stronger and more compact impact. Especially because I had a good experience with Zelenka's mystifying quasi-documentary Happy End in the past. I'm thinking about what disturbs me so much and it's probably the celebrity dimension of the film. Nohavica, Plíhal, and the band Čechomor are essentially playing themselves and there are a number of Nohavica's actual songs in there. The film is actually relying on Nohavica's popularity and stealing his real lyrics. A good mystification utilizes some popular phenomenon, but it's not literal. I consider the British film The Rutles to be a very good example, as it made fun of Beatlemania. Year of the Devil does have funny moments and entertaining scenes, but I lost interest in the film during several passages. And to return to the celebrity aspect of the film, it's quite characteristic that Jan Hřebejk or Saša Gedeon appear in the credits, even though they only appeared for a few seconds as themselves. Nohavica also had a somewhat disturbing effect on me, as he suits the role of an "actor" much worse than the guys from Čechomor. Overall impression: 50%.

A lavishly filmed animated feature film that can be considered a perfect example of the steampunk genre. The director goes to its roots and there are all sorts of steam clouds, gear mechanisms, crankshafts, and complex mechanisms. Visually, it is stunning, and Steamboy would definitely look much better on the big screen than on a TV. In my eyes, Steamboy is slightly undermined by the simple story, excessive pathos, noble phrases, and overly straightforward depiction of the conflict between greed and militarism on one side and humanistic ideals on the other, and I would have appreciated more shades of gray in the characters and their conflicts. Overall impression: 75%.

I absolutely refuse to accept the claim that it is impossible to sit on two chairs. Firstly, I know a few people who have gained so much weight that one chair is usually too small for them, but more importantly, I tried it yesterday in the heat of a board game and surprisingly, it worked. I don't know why, but my back is now killing me. Although I believe it is possible to sit on two chairs, in interpersonal relationships, I prefer clarity, and I understand Pierre's attitude of being torn between his family and his mistress, but I don't sympathize with him. I would give the film 3 stars because of its format, even though it is too long and the direction is not of such good quality that I wouldn't notice the passing time. It needed some editing. Daniel Auteuil played an exemplary weakling, who I don't find sympathetic at all, but even that is not the reason for the low rating. I am bothered by the chosen perspective, which tends to excuse Pierre, looking too much at the story from his side and forgetting about those around him, especially his wife and children. Someone else wrote that it is a tragic relationship of unfulfilled love - I disagree, it was fulfilled from both sides to the brim. And I definitely do not identify with the message of the film. I would bet that Zabou Breitman has had quite a colorful relationship history and a few tombstones in the form of failed marriages... Overall impression: 45%.

According to a certain scientist, unsuccessful psychopaths fill prisons, while successful ones become bosses of multinational companies, industrial conglomerates, and respectable institutions. Lou is somewhere between these worlds. Without a formal education, but with high determination and an absolute absence of moral restraints and emotions. In the beginning, he is introduced as an absolute loser, but soon seizes an opportunity and starts his own business in the sale of videos, which journalists with ethical restraints cannot stomach. I cannot help but compare it to Fincher's successful drama Gone Girl, which, despite the director's undeniable craftsmanship, felt somewhat artificial to me, especially from an area where the topic has already been extensively explored in the past. I didn't believe in the story in Gone Girl, while Nightcrawler has an unpleasantly realistic undercurrent, and I never doubted for a moment that people like Lou are among us, waiting for their chance. Jake Gyllenhaal is a reliable actor and delivers exactly what his character requires. The direction is brisk and the camera works wonders. I did not regret my visit to the movie theater in the slightest. Perhaps only the script could have been a bit more restrained, as it is noticeable that Dan Gilroy wanted to depict his anti-hero in the most repulsive light possible, and the tools he uses for that purpose are somewhat direct. On the other hand, similar films often tend to partially sympathize with such a character, which fortunately does not apply in this case. Overall impression: 90%.

From a director like Costa-Gavras, I expect more than from a run-of-the-mill filmmaker, and for a film for which I would be willing to give a weaker 4 stars if it were directed by someone else, I will only give Costa-Gavras 3. Above all else, his Amen. reminds me of another drama by a famous director, namely Katyn by Andrzej Wajda. It is an exceptionally powerful work, an attempt to deliver the best possible result, but in the end, something is lacking. Especially in the case of Costa-Gavras' drama, there is too much talking in some parts, and the film flows too slowly in others. And in some cases, there are not enough charismatic actors appearing in the film. In short, the result is just an average drama that is elevated by the theme. From a historical perspective, it is certainly interesting to look at the involvement of the Catholic Church during World War II, in which it had its bright moments but also very dark ones. The genocide of the Jews could not have been prevented, but many things could have been said more boldly, and above all, the papal seat has had blood on its hands since the 1930s, paving the way for the Nazis to power by maneuvering the Catholic Center as a political pawn in cooperation with the NSDAP... Overall impression: 65%.

In a number of comments, surprise, or rather criticism, appears about the final scene which supposedly changes the meaning of the entire film and turns a psychological drama into red propaganda in the last minutes. Unfortunately, these viewers either failed to understand the social context that Tavernier is attempting to convey or have deficiencies in their knowledge of French history. The film actually has a clear opinion from the beginning and Tavernier doesn't aim for psychological drama as much as socio-critical drama, using the case of an exposed serial killer to criticize the social conditions and take a stance against the hypocrisy and double standards of the so-called upper classes. From the beginning to the end, a left-wing perspective is clearly felt, discussing, for example, the so-called Dreyfus affair, which was one of the most fundamental clashes between the republican and internationalist left and elitist nationalist right, and which had a clear anti-Semitic nature. The film also clearly exhibits an anti-clerical tone, with a number of scenes that expose the church. From today's perspective, it is necessary to highlight above all the outstanding performance of Michel Galabru, who portrayed the mentally disturbed killer with incredible virtuosity. Philippe Noiret as a professional opportunist and manipulator was also good, but Galabru surpassed him by several levels this time. By the way, I also disliked the mentioned scene at the end, but only because it was unnecessarily straightforward. The same could have been conveyed through some type of dialogue between the film characters. However, I won't spoil the rating of this excellent two-hour film because of a two-minute slip-up. Overall impression: 90%.

An interesting film idea, which unfortunately wasn't transformed into an intelligent and functional point. The indecisiveness of the male partner grows into a state where his partner transforms into a multitude of different women and thus András fulfills the dream of many men to have a full harem. Despite the fact that the film story really doesn't have any strong culmination, this Hungarian piece didn't bother me in any way and more or less worked as a one-time experience. Overall impression: 50%.

Almodóvar has already received 4 stars from me in the past, and it would be interesting to compare these titles with the film All About My Mother, during which I started to have enough of Almodóvar and his film style. Filmmaking is undoubtedly in his blood, but what can you do when his film contains a lot of melodramatic twists, like from a cheap Latin American soap opera? It is theatrical, and the characters and their actions are as if from another planet. I am not such a puritan that I mind transvestites, homosexuals, and prostitutes, but other characters in Almodóvar's world hardly ever get in. Moreover, how he builds their relationships is very forced. Two women who have never seen each other before share very intimate and crucial information at their first meeting, which a person would probably prefer to keep secret and only confide in a very close and trustworthy person. I can't help it, but as cultured as Almodóvar is in revealing his sexual desires compared to, let's say, Pasolini, his desires and his entire world exhaust me, so I'm done with it. Overall impression: 45%.

There are films that keep their genre a secret for a long time, whereas Kouf's film reveals everything with just its title. It is a crime comedy, where a group of criminals wants to rob a bank branch in a small town, but bad teamwork and a series of coincidences cause the heist to turn into a nightmare for its participants. The screenplay is quite transparent but surprisingly works without any problems, and the mainstream humor never stoops to primitive slapstick. It has decent casting and non-offensive direction, and it is a film without any glitches, which may not belong to the top tier of its genre, but this time I'll round up from 3.5 stars. Overall impression: 70%. By the way, Disorganized Crime is in no way part of the action genre, as some film fans tend to think. Genre classification here simply missed the mark.