gudaulin

Each subsequent continuation of a commercially successful blockbuster usually means that its creators wanted to surpass the previous film by increasing the budget, adding more bombastic action, more special, more of everything, and yet occasionally a film comes along that surpasses its predecessor. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is no exception to this rule. It is a case of screenwriting orgies, where the screenwriters literally went of their way to fit as many "shocking" twists, betrayals of the main characters, and lightning-fast changes in the situation into one film. As a result, the script does not work, and even though it is a comedy, at times it reeks of self-parody. But there is still the bombastic set design with plenty of successful digital tricks, relatively decent action, mutual teasing, and lots of small jokes, which allows me to give it three stars. It is a typical popcorn movie, where it is better not to think much and just perceive the visuals and movement on the screen. Overall impression: 50%.

An American independent film based largely on dialogues between two municipal service employees. One of them is shortly before retirement, with a lot of life experience, mature, but also somewhat worn out by life. The other, portrayed convincingly by Liev Schreiber, has had a few ups and downs in life, including a prison stay, a feeling of frustration with his current life, and an honest effort to change it, but also an explosive temperament that constantly leads him into conflicts. His older colleague represents an anchor point for him, and a masculine friendship develops between them in a short time. It's a small, unassuming film, without big gestures, action, or turning points, but still emotionally impactful. The characters evolve through seemingly small conflicts and incidents. Overall impression: 75%.

In Russia, Michalkov's big film met with passionate resistance and the critics eagerly feasted on it, which undoubtedly is largely related to his position and political views. It is undeniable that Burnt by the Sun 2 represents, to a certain extent, a forced continuation of the original film, which is a very compact work culminating in the death of all the main characters, thus practically prohibiting any further continuation. When one character miraculously comes back to life, it is a pleasant surprise, but in this case, it resembles certain biblical scenes. Michalkov simply wanted to make a war epic and used the popularity of his Oscar-winning film, even at the cost of violating his previous artistic work. It is also true that Burnt by the Sun 2 is far from reaching the artistic level of the first film or film 12. The screenplay is too fragmented, with constant shifts in time and numerous characters that are not always adequately utilized. On the one hand, it is seasoned with Hollywood clichés - those miraculous last-minute escapes or instant divine retribution for the villain's immoral act, while on the other, it reflects most of Michalkov's filmography over the past twenty years, with his political views saturated with Russian nationalism and "Slavophile" sentiments that blend Orthodoxy with communism in the name of building a strong state and defending the nation. The film can also be criticized for some smaller script shortcomings, but Michalkov still demonstrates that he is a great director of the present, primarily because he has a sufficiently large budget to present a series of grand war scenes with massive comparisons and a convincing depiction of the apocalypse in the summer months of 1941. No other Russian filmmakers dare to present aerial bombings with period technology or a mass assault of German tanks and infantry on the position of a criminal unit. Overall impression: 45%.

American audiences may have little interest in European or world cinema, but American studios closely follow what can be monetized and eagerly produce remakes of successful films, particularly French ones. Typically, these versions are far from as good as the originals, but American audiences appreciate the presence of familiar faces and American English. Naturally, Godard had something completely different in mind than his American counterpart. The label "crime" is quite misleading, as is the presence of the gallery members on screen, because the director was making a psychological drama focused on the character of his protagonists, not on action. In the American version, the basic story and its characters remained intact, but it became a common product of mass culture, a mediocre affair with a hint of romance that has almost nothing in common with the intellectual depth of its source. If you enjoyed the original Godard film, don't bother watching the remake, and the same applies in reverse. Both films have completely different audiences. Of course, there are also differences in the actors' approaches; Belmondo's crook represented a completely different type of character than his later likable adventurers, and Gere lacks his charisma and acting range. Overall impression: 40%.

This is how American studios imagine comedy for everyone. They cast a well-known actor and a charming actress as the main couple, use a few jokes, add some kind of plot, mix it all together, and create something hopelessly mediocre and interchangeable. Matthew Perry has basically had a template for his characters since the days of Friends and he still uses the same facial expressions, which, to be fair, are quite enjoyable if you don't watch him consistently, but they're not enough for a feature film. And Elizabeth, well, she may be attractive, but she's not a good enough actress to solely maintain the film at an acceptable level. Simply put, the film lacks a good script and quality jokes. Overall impression: 45%.

In comparison to Centurion, Kevin McDonald's direction is noticeably more sober, without the presence of wild women with a layer of make-up and without hectoliters of spraying digital blood and flying severed limbs and heads. I prefer his more realistic approach, and after 2/3 of the movie, I considered giving it four stars, because as a historical adventure film, The Eagle worked well up until then without any serious slips. However, in the last third, a large group of Roman veterans came along, who after 23 years remembered their military oath, and were apparently mobilized by the slave Esca through the internet, as they emerged from all corners of the Pictish Empire in the appropriate gorge in record time. Here, not only the internet could have played a role, but probably also helicopters. In addition, other screenplay motifs also faltered, such as when the Celts, who had endured a long and exhausting pursuit, demonstratively executed a "traitor" child whom they had apparently carried the entire time in a basket on their back. That final battle between young warriors and grandfathers in rusty Roman armor would also have turned out completely differently in reality, as the life expectancy back then was roughly half of what it is in our era... Despite all this, I appreciate The Eagle's more psychological style with its attempt at developed characters in contrast to the superficially efficient Centurion. Additionally, both main protagonists are appropriately likable, so the viewer can identify with them. Overall impression: 60%.

The Coen brothers are known for their maximum precision, with which they approach every tested genre and film being prepared. In True Grit, this can be seen in every aspect, whether it is the casting, prop selection, the well-crafted screenplay, and above all, traditionally high-quality directing. This film is a return to the traditional western, which experienced its golden age about 60 years ago and has been rather languishing in recent decades. Precisely because it is a return to the roots of the respective genre, there are no major surprises and it is not a modern genre variation like Dead Man or Dances with Wolves. This is a classic battle of good and evil, tough men and wilderness, where law and justice are far from what we imagine in today's courtrooms. However, it is rawer, less romantic, and somewhat more sober than the famous films of the golden era. Furthermore, the presence of a stubborn girl who stubbornly seeks to avenge her father's death and bosses around the gunmen brings important lightness to the film. It is unnecessary to highlight other film elements, such as the camera or music because in the case of the Coen brothers they always work perfectly. Overall impression: 80%. If I were a fan of the genre, I would not hesitate to give it 5 stars.

After watching this film for the first time years ago, I considered it a powerful experience with an effective ending. The problem is that Polanski sticks faithfully to Levin's book, and that is the stumbling block. Polanski's film is strong where the viewer doesn't know whether it's the paranoia of a woman with a risky pregnancy or a real conspiracy and the intervention of supernatural forces. Theoretically, it would work if the twist weren't notoriously known. Rosemary's Baby is one of Polanski's most successful films, and this title is usually the first that comes to mind for an average movie fan when Polanski is mentioned. At the time, the film fascinated audiences precisely because of the combination of motherhood and the then immensely popular theme of Satanism. Levin's book is about the strength of maternal love, not the psychosis of an unhappy mother. The film would simply work much better as a psychological drama than as a horror, and the literal ending is disruptive and ineffective. Moreover, it is more of a dark grotesque now than a horror. In retrospect, I appreciate Mia Farrow's performance and, above all, Polanski's traditionally meticulous direction, but the script and twist are quite off for me, so I can't rate it higher than 3 stars. Overall impression: 60%.

Woody Allen is a sharp observer of human relationships, and dissecting partner relationships is one of his favorite film motifs. Spouses can be considered a kind of textbook of married life, or rather, partnership. We find herein all the basic types of marital problems, crises, and possible solutions. This film is one of Woody Allen's commercially most successful works, because at the same time, his longstanding relationship with actress Mia Farrow fell apart, and it did so quite wildly, with the malicious assistance of the tabloid media. The audience and critics tended to perceive this film as Woody Allen's family reality. The film is traditionally carefully cast and brilliantly acted, but compared to Allen's early works, I find it less entertaining. It is really more of an excellently filmed manual than a film that would emotionally affect me, like for example Hannah and Her Sisters. Mia Farrow plays an interesting role here as a seemingly fragile submissive woman, but she can subtly manipulate her surroundings and comes off as the least sympathetic character among the group of six unhappy people that Allen looks down on. Overall impression: 65%.

Interestingly, the Polish TV production with an incomparably lower budget and ambitions impresses me much more strongly and fulfills the intellectual foundation of the book more, in my opinion, than this much larger and more spectacular Russian series. Maybe it's precisely because the Poles managed with a third of the runtime, so the plot was much denser than Bortko's work, which deals with the complicated Soviet past of the 1930s, and where, among other things, we can also meet Beria as the second most powerful figure of Stalin's era. This version of The Master and Margarita is simply too sprawling and sometimes meandering, in which the traditional Russian handicap is evident - the unwillingness to edit. Otherwise, Anna Kovalchuk is beautiful, and as the protagonist's fateful love, she performs excellently. On the other hand, the characters from The Devil's Suite seemed somewhat uncharismatic to me. Overall impression: 55%.