gudaulin

The story has the power of Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps, a topic that has not yet been explored in cinema, and it is obviously made with enthusiasm and talent, care and knowledge, and simply honesty. Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings about this Baltic piece. The film experiments that appear at film festivals usually present a significant risk for the viewers because they can encounter a variety of things. I felt like a theatergoer who goes to see a play and accidentally wanders into a wax figure museum, meticulously crafted, intricately detailed, dramatically lit, and accompanied by an emotional commentary. With all due respect to the maker of the figures and the whole project, I would probably feel somewhat cheated. I can't claim that I wasn't warned, but I didn't take the information about the film seriously enough, or rather, I thought that the mentioned images would come alive at a certain point, and get moving. But then Martti Helde surprised me with the uncompromising nature of his artistic vision. From that moment on, when someone complains about the static nature of a film, I will give them a smack and recommend watching this film. If I had seen the film late at night, it would have had a more reliable effect on me than a dose of horse tranquilizers. It's all well and good that the images have an enchanting impressiveness, but what's the point when there is no more life in them than in a mummy's sarcophagus? A film made in a classical way, meaning I could perceive the dialogues, the acting of the participants, and the film music, would have had a much stronger impact on me, and I probably would not hesitate to give it the highest rating. Overall impression: 50%.

In the opening minutes, it feels like a very raw, unfiltered ride through the underground of a city, a road movie among alcohol-soaked human wrecks, impoverished homeless people, and desperate individuals who survive from day to day. I expected to see a strong realistic social study of people on the outskirts of the system or completely beyond its reach. However, the meager existence named Carax quickly veers toward the shining neon lights, which create a contrast with the filthy homeless people, and the viewer's gaze slides towards the rocket geysers fired during the generously conceived city celebrations. Among their reflections on the surface of the Seine, Carax's characters zigzag while water skiing. Good Lord, what does this have to do with the life reality of Parisian homeless people?! Even those at the bottom of the social ladder are entitled to love and undoubtedly experience it, but it is much harsher. In their world, there is no room for melodrama and beautifully shot poetic images. Carax envisions the love of his characters from a middle-class perspective, effectively lacking any significant features typical of kitschy melodramas. The loving couple is separated by a social abyss, the surroundings don't wish them well, and a serious incurable disease afflicts the girl, whom a miraculous treatment will save from the precipice at the last minute. If The Lovers on the Bridge is interesting in any way, then it is through the amazing transformation that Juliette Binoche undergoes. From a charming beauty, she becomes a burnt-out and embittered wreck, in whom no one would look for one of the most sympathetic actresses around. It is said that when Audrey Hepburn was dressed in an unattractive florist's costume in My Fair Lady, she cried from humiliation. Binoche clearly has no problem with that, and her goal is to sell herself as a great actress, not as a star. Carax offers another plus - impressive shots of Parisian streets, especially the Pont-Neuf bridge. The coldness of the stone blocks, and the images of majestic statues, will certainly leave their mark on the viewer. For these mentioned merits, Carax ultimately receives an overall impression of 55% of the from me, but at the same time, I take away the conviction that Carax is too manneristic a creator for my taste, and in the future, I will tend to avoid his work. By the way, one of his vices is also megalomania because those 130 million francs could have been much more effectively and sensibly invested. If I were a producer, Carax's image would terrify me in the most horrible dreams. The most expensive French film should belong to a different genre and look a little different...

Taken with distance, what's most impressive about "Zakázaná zóna" is that the film looks much more expensive than it actually is, as if a large and influential studio stood behind it. Typically, it's the other way around. Gareth Edwards certainly presented himself well to the producers and demonstrated that he has what it takes for a big-budget production. On the other hand, the film looks somewhat conflicted. For many tastes, it's too intimate, shot in a documentary style where the average viewer would expect action, scares, simply at least a small dose of favorite genre clichés. Edwards, however, opts for unpretentiousness; danger is mostly hinted at somewhere behind the wall of trees in the tropical jungle, from vague movements in the shadows or water, and mysterious sounds that tantalize the imagination, hiding anything. On one hand, I was grateful that it avoided the traditional genre baggage that drowned so many other titles; on the other hand, it could have been conceived better. One hundred-meter octopuses may look impressive, but with such an invasion, humans would deal with them just fine. We have arsenals of weapons that we don't know what to do with, and the poor easily identifiable octopuses would get such a beating that animal rights activists would have nothing to protect. The real danger of contaminating the Earth's atmosphere would come more from microorganisms that could spread uncontrollably. In the movie, I didn't understand the growing dominance of the extraterrestrial invaders, and I certainly didn't understand how the oversized octopuses managed with gravity. No wonder the largest planetary organisms live in the ocean. So the octopuses probably sweet-talked or bribed gravity somehow. It would also be worth considering why the well-off dad didn't arrange air transport for his daughter, and I also thought that... Well, it could go on for a long time. As a road movie through a sick world where functioning institutions and certainties have collapsed, it wasn't bad, so in the end, I'll rate "Zakázaná zóna" at 60% overall impression.

I do not understand the director Vejdělek very well and his latest films completely miss the mark for me. With three stars, he probably reached his maximum with Vaclav, which he will most likely never surpass. Similar controversial material has been made many times in world cinema, and in most cases, more convincingly and with greater emotional force. On the other hand, Vejdělek can rely on the great names of two acting generations. Emília Vašáryová is excellent in the role of a mother and Ivan Trojan proves that he is a major star of contemporary Czech cinema. Trojan is perfectly natural and believable in the role of a mentally unstable village fool. Occasionally, the script stumbles, but within the framework of Czech cinema of the first decade of the new millennium, it is, I'm sad to say, solidly above average. Overall impression: 60%.

It's only been a few days since I wrote about Just Another Love Story, the previous work by Ole Bornedal, that it shouldn't have an ending and I would be satisfied. The second encounter with his work brought me the same experience. For three-quarters of the runtime, I was floating in the clouds of a highly outstanding spectacle, enjoying the excellent camera work, sensing the rising tension and alarming signals of an approaching crisis, appreciating the scenes of emotional impact like a thunder strike - and then everything went down the drain within a few minutes because the director pushed too hard and didn't understand the psychology of the crowd or the individual. As a result, the typical film construct is exposed. Undoubtedly, it is superbly shot, but at the same time, unreliable. From such material, much more could have been extracted if Bornedal had tamed his imagination, not chased too many rabbits at once, and fixed the logical gaps. The film notably resembles Peckinpah's Straw Dogs, and I wouldn't directly speak of plagiarism, but certainly of strong inspiration. However, that film seems more believable to me and more impactful in its consequences. Additionally, it lacks the strangely reconciliatory ending. Nonetheless, I have no problem with giving this film three strong stars. Overall impression: 65%.

I classify similarly tuned films as pure maliciousness. An experienced genre fan knows what to expect when the label spy thriller appears - chases, shootouts, hand-to-hand fights, and breathtaking action. However, you will be disappointed because none of that happens in this film. The film belongs to the stream of realistically conceived dramas, which consider authenticity as their strongest aspect. After all, the film was based on a true event, the scandal of the discovery of an Israeli spy in the American government once seriously shook the traditionally good relations between the two countries. After a brief introduction, where the plot introduces the viewer to the training of young spies, the screenwriter focuses on two secret Mossad operations in recruiting new agents abroad. Despite its longer duration, I certainly didn't get bored, but it is necessary to emphasize that the film has a more intimate tone and gives up on all the favorite genre clichés. It is driven by dialogue and appears more as a television series. However, those who are willing to overlook the above will definitely find something in this espionage game, although its quality is less than, for example, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. From the cast, I would like to point out Sandrine Kiberlain, the teacher from Little Nicholas who has a quite spicy past as a sensual call girl and a secret service agent who gathers information in bed. Overall impression: 65%.

Queer is the term for all those who defy the common norms of human sexuality, and therefore, many things fit into it. This journalistic program evidently does not worry about the feedback and consequences of their broadcasting, and it does not acknowledge taboos and stubbornly follows its own path. Sometimes it seems that sex can be practiced in many forms, for example, between a bisexual transvestite who is engaged in prostitution and a hypersexual lesbian with dominant tendencies. Only one of these options, rather eccentric and marginal, is the classic act of intercourse between a man and a woman. Queer can be witty and playful, it can bring interesting information from a world that only a few are allowed to glimpse into, and it can be urgent in defending the rights and freedoms of sexual minorities. However, it is often annoyingly self-assured and proudly proclaims its "otherness." The program forgets that if I have a private party, anything that suits the participants can happen there. But if I make it public, I should expect that many people may have different standards, and what they see may evoke unexpected and unwanted reactions. Queer can also be heavy-handed, unfunny, and parasitic on the outputs of celebrities. In short, it has uneven quality and one never knows what to expect. Overall impression: 55%.

It's strange. Cast Away seemingly contains everything that predisposes it to triumphant success, namely an attractive subject matter, an excellent cast, a famous director, a decent script, a reasonably large budget, and so on. Nevertheless, in the end, something didn't quite click for me. I feel a certain unfulfillment of expectations and I don't want to give it a fourth star, even though the film is disadvantaged by the fact that I saw it on television. Perhaps on the big screen, I would lean towards giving it a fourth star. I pondered what was excessive or missing for me, which turned out to partly be a certain melodramatic aspect, but I still couldn't define the core of the problem. Cast Away is too literal, unnecessarily sprawling, pathetic, and overblown. Despite all the effort, it doesn't captivate, even though Hanks gives his all. Overall impression: 65%.

Battlestar Galactica appeared during the boom of TV series production when budgets of individual projects reached multiples of what crews could have asked for just a decade ago, and it really shows in its visuals. I vaguely remember the original series from the late 70s, which looks really laughably cheap compared to this. The visuals and the level of the script pleasantly surprised and even amazed me in the first episodes, so I was willing to consider giving it the highest rating. But as time went on, certain script shortcomings started to show, and there was a decent amount of dead weight in the episodes. Not to mention that as time went on, I started to feel like the Cylons were trying to dig under the house, break through the wall, or jump down the chimney, when all they needed to do was turn the doorknob and walk in. Basically, they come up with insane conspiracies that are not worth thinking too much about, where in reality the exhausted opponent is waiting for a mercy blow. Over time, it increasingly became a social game about which crew member, again against all logic, hides their Cylon nature. Too many traitors and conspiracies for too small a community of refugees. Overall impression of the series as a whole: 60%.

I consider myself a left-wing liberal, but the first seasons of Downton Abbey enchanted me with its old-fashioned conservatism of the noble estate, where respect for traditions and natural authorities are not taken for granted, and after five episodes, I eagerly awarded it 5 stars. However, the second season followed, and it somehow declined in my eyes, and I more or less endured the third season. When I attempted to watch the fourth season, I began to feel an immune reaction in my body and gave up on it. It's not so much about the usual illness of TV series or a decline in the quality of the screenplay, but rather my political beliefs were being triggered, and the conservative idyll started to irritate me immensely. On such a large scale, any false note naturally becomes apparent, and I have to agree with the notion that Downton Abbey seems like a grandly staged soap opera for snobs. The on-screen events could be easily parodied. When you look at it closely, I always wondered how the cursed and despised genre of soap operas would look if it were filmed not as we know it from Czech or Latin American soap operas, but with careful attention to quality casting and directing, and in the case of Downton, I actually managed to find out. At first glance, it works, and one can admire the acting of the participants, the beauty of the women, the nobility of the men, and the scheming of the villains, but at the same time, one must not think too critically and must delicately turn a blind eye to some of the actions of the characters on TV. If I evaluate the series as a whole, I would give it a mere 2 stars and a 45% overall impression. If I were to evaluate only the first season, I could possibly consider giving it 4 stars.