gudaulin

Given the population of New York, it is possible to compare the creation of a film to a situation when a producer challenges three directors who shoot in different styles and for a different audience to create something. The individual stories would stand on their own at least among fans of the respective director, but together it doesn't work and moreover, I have a feeling that in neither case is it a piece that stands high amongst the works of the directors. All three stories have a certain detachment and elements of humor of varying intensity. Although I am a fan of Woody Allen, I was most intrigued by Scorsese's story. Overall impression: 60%.

Next Door is the case of a film that is incredibly impressive and pleasing to the audience, even though its budget probably wouldn't cover the fee of a single lower-category American star. This psychological horror manages with only six actors and takes place in the backdrop of a neglected apartment and the adjacent corridors of a shabby apartment building. It does not require any flashy and expensive special effects, and the director only needs a quality script and classic filmmaking techniques such as editing, flashbacks, and well-chosen music to create a feeling of tension. The unfriendly environment of a suburban apartment building and the interior of the apartment play a role in creating the atmosphere, evoking a sense of constraint and emptiness. The rooms are often dimly lit and at first glance, the absence of love and positive human emotions is visible. The film is a counterbalance to films like Secretary, which attempted to present sexual deviations with irony and humorous exaggeration, whereas Next Door explores the darker psychopathic side of sexual deviations. It is a short, 70-minute film, but it is packed with emotions and not a single minute is unnecessary. It's an unknown film gem that would probably be a box office hit with an American studio behind it and with adequate advertising. Overall impression: 90%.

It's strange - one would say that a film that presents a director's autobiographical journey into his youth and early career will be among his priorities and he will approach it with maximum enthusiasm. However, if I were to find a title in Mazursky's filmography that I would revisit, it would be Moscow on the Hudson, not this one. The most damaging aspect of it is probably the mediocre cast with an uncharismatic actor in the lead role. Worth mentioning is perhaps Walken and Goldblum in very minor supporting roles, but everything else is interchangeable, and honestly, to me, the performances or characters often come across as annoying rather than charming and humorous in any way. The memorable scenes are minimal. I can't help it, but for me, Mazursky is more interesting as an actor than as the person behind the camera. Overall impression: 45%.

I'm sorry, Mathieu, but your attempt unfortunately does not fit into the fairly broad definition of what I can still consider a film. I understand that for a gallery visitor, a five-minute view of a painting can greatly shake their imagination and aesthetic sensibility, but for me, it's primarily a static bore. Overall impression: 5%.

Nicholas and Alexandra somewhat resembles a journey on the Trans-Siberian Railway. A long journey through deserted landscapes, then a short stop, and another long stretch. The duration is simply exhausting, and yet one constantly feels that they are missing out on many important events and phenomena. It is inevitably flattened because capturing the last 14 years of the existence of Imperial Russia with all its important twists and characters is simply impossible in one film. This required an eight to ten-part series; after all, today's popular docusoap genre comes to mind. The set design stands out the most, as no expenses were spared. It is simply a grandly conceived epic film, although history enthusiasts will rightfully criticize it for being too brief and incapable of capturing the truly important processes that led to the regime's downfall. On the other hand, unlike many so-called historical films that interpret history very loosely, Nicholas and Alexandra sticks to the essential historical facts. Overall impression: 60%.

From previous encounters with adaptations of Charles Dickens's novels, I know that the British approach his literary legacy with the respect that is owed to a national classic. They usually spare no expense and engage famous names in the leading roles at the very least. Those are exactly the strengths of Nicholas Nickleby. However, there are some difficulties with the other aspects. Dickens wrote his novel in the 1830s. Although it falls into the better part of the contemporary production, it was not an innovative work, even within the author's oeuvre it is at best average. The simple moralistic story with traditional social themes has significantly black-and-white characters and is woefully predictable. The first third has a certain insight, provided mainly by the well-crafted family of the owner of the rural school. The second third is saved by the theatrical ensemble, but with the increasing minutes, the insight disappears and the film is dominated by naivety and sentiment. In the last third, I was cringing during some of the dialogues. Today we have higher education and culture has undergone a long development, so we are accustomed to more complex characters and more credible motivations. Perhaps this film needed to be less slavishly faithful to the spirit of the original work, as even a small shift would have been to its benefit. Overall impression: 45%.

My evaluation and review are only provisional since I have only had the opportunity to see a single episode so far, but based on that, I consider the series to be underrated on FilmBooster. I understand the hesitation, as it is difficult to orient oneself in the abundance of characters with exotic-sounding names and court intrigues, and one can easily get lost in it. However, I enjoyed the setting and style and definitely did not get bored with it. It is a costume detective story, somewhat influenced by a romanticized approach, but whatever - for now, it deserves around 75% and 4 stars.

The four-part nature series uses elements more suitable for commercial television, with commentary like, "This little critter almost took Nick's hand off," followed by a camera zoom on the toothed maw of a shark pup. Nonetheless, it undoubtedly maintains a certain level and is not lacking in information. Nigel Marven is a good narrator, and the footage is professional. Overall impression: 55%.

I am certainly not the target audience because it is a significantly infantile matter that relies on a flood of digital special effects and the popularity of Ben Stiller. On the other hand, if I compare Levy's film to Sommers' G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, which I recently watched, this one is money better invested and the better part of similar productions. Overall impression: 50%.

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%.