gudaulin

A pleasant film. Although it doesn't bring anything new to the perspective of show business and its rules, it is sympathetic in that all the relationship storylines end positively, even though the viewer suspects that in some cases they will not last long. The cast is also good, one would tend to believe in confessions of love to someone like Anna Friel, even though they know she slept with half of her customers just a few minutes ago. :-) Overall impression: 65%.

I understand what Stone is trying to do, but the problem is that this is not what a psychological drama should be. The script and direction are both helpless, and the result is only one star for Edward Norton's traditionally excellent performance. Otherwise, major talent is required to kill a cast and a promising concept like this. Overall impression: 25%.

I am not going to complain about this movie, but I have to point out that I am so exhausted from the whole series that I would gladly accept Voldemort's victory. I have previously mentioned that, from my point of view, the movie series should have had only four parts, as this fully demonstrates a lot of filler from the books. Additionally, since the producers decided to divide the last book into two movie parts for higher profits, this flaw is even more evident in this case. Logically, the film does not escalate as it should and thus lags from a dramatic perspective. On the other hand, it once again scores points with the big budget and the care of the film studio, so Harry Potter fans will not be disappointed. Overall impression: 50%.

A sympathetic film thanks to a series of successful catchphrases, self-irony, and the decadent environment of Hollywood. However, it is precisely the kind of film where I appreciate a lot of details, but the overall impression is not so great. Namely, the film has an overcomplicated script, purposeless squeezing out of humor, and violent jumping between crazy situations and more serious tones. In addition, out of the three main actors, only Robert Downey Jr. works for me completely. I don't really like Val Kilmer and he only ever impressed me in The Salton Sea. Michelle Monaghan is a fine actress, but she didn't fit into this role and I would prefer a dozen others in her place. Moreover, the script also omitted a lot of self-deprecating dialogues and jokes, it works exactly in the spirit of what is expected. Simply put, it has been done many times before. Overall impression: 65%.

Václav Havel is no longer a dissident or president, he is now just a celebrity. For him, it is of course not difficult to gather a whole bunch of money and fulfill one of his dreams by making a feature film. The money is willingly donated by a well-known billionaire, a number of leading Czech actors consider it an honor to participate in the project, and the same goes for other film professions. Practically no Czech film in recent years can be said to have had such intensive PR as Leaving. Reports from the filming appeared in the media, interviews with actors who acted as if they had just taken a drug causing euphoria, and judging by these reports, it was supposed to be the film experience of the year. Therein lies the problem, because Leaving, with its content and film techniques used, is more of a film intended for the related audience in a film club. In reality, for example, Leaving was shown at a particular movie theater in 4 versions during the best screening times, which only happens to the biggest box office hits. The same movie theater boycotts films by the Coen brothers or Polanski because it considers them to be not commercial enough. The problem is also with the source material because the play of the same name was considered a theatrical event of the decade in the Czech Republic, but in the world, it received only a lukewarm reception and can be described as purely average. A top-notch film cannot be created from an average work, especially when the director has no previous film experience. Of course, this is not a catastrophe because the film crew, whether the camera, music, or cast, is truly among the best Czechs currently have. But it's a typical film meant for "blowing off steam." If it weren't for the eager fans among journalists who consider Havel to be a symbol of democracy and an unquestionable figure, and a similar group of oppositely inclined people who need to settle their scores with Havel for the same reasons, and thus their passionate debates fill the media, that film would simply and plainly disappear from theaters due to lack of audience interest and would sporadically appear in uninteresting times on public television... Overall impression: 40%.

It is nice when myths are debunked, but in doing so, one should not forget about the audience, and when debunking myths, the result should be as close as possible to historical reality. Here, folklore romantics can have their satisfaction and one can only wonder how these bandits enjoyed their outlaw life in the 18th century. Somehow, it escapes attention that it was actually a form of organized crime, that there was dirt, fear, stress, and violence involved. The film itself has not just one or two flaws but fails in the crucial aspects, like the screenplay, which does not create a coherent view of Jánošík as a historical character but rather dissects his sexual life, and it is a succession of genre images that are not always relevant. Action scenes, dialogues, casting (nothing against Jiráček, but Jánošík had to be more charismatic if he wanted to lead a criminal gang)... At times, it was so unbearable that I seriously considered not finishing the film. The final nail in the coffin is the unnecessarily long duration - the almost 140 minutes are truly a punishment for the viewer considering the aforementioned. I have a feeling that the effort to support domestic film and the legend, which has its place in both nations of the former Czechoslovakia, has worked for many users. Overall impression: 40%.

In Clint Eastwood's extensive filmography, Dirty Harry is considered one of the pivotal films that shaped his career, and the role of tough detective Harry is iconic. However, taking a critical look not only at this film but at the entire series with the titular hero that followed, I cannot help but feel that it is a rather average crime movie of its time. If it weren't for the charismatic and rugged Eastwood, there would not have been a demand for these films. The whole plot is inconsistently and unconvincingly built to highlight the role and attitudes of the main character, who criticizes the system. As a result, both superiors and especially political representatives behave like a flock of idiots. Similarly, the psychology of the villain is brushed off, and his behavior is illogical. At the time of its release, the film and its protagonist sparked extensive discussion and criticism from both film critics and journalists, who criticized his political views as brash and resembling those of Judge Lynch. Harry was even branded as a fascist. The fact is that it was the activist 70s that followed the turbulent aftermath of the 1968 events. In hindsight, Harry seems like an innocent likable character, unlike those policemen from the Belmondo crime movies of the 70s and 80s, who shoot gangsters on the streets upon their encounter and beat them in sensitive parts of their bodies because they know best where the guilt lies and they don't need a trial for punishment. Though they do it with a charm and catchphrases, I find them much more problematic. Not to mention José Padilha's films, which seem like a deliberate assault on the liberal state and liberal values using artistic weapons. Overall impression: 60%.

The critical comments from users and their low reviews undoubtedly stem from disappointment that Luc Besson did not make a new Nikita or Leon film - in short, they were expecting a different genre and a different plot. After earning respect in the French film industry with his action films, Besson was able to experiment with different genres and attempted to create a poetic romantic film about the relationship between an angel and a worldly sinner. The problem is that the poetry on the screen does not work very well because the chemistry between Debbouze and Rasmussen does not work for several reasons. Angel-A honestly works only until Angela appears on the screen, and that is unfortunately too soon. This film should have been made as a pure comedy because Jamel Debbouze has great comedic talent and is primarily cast as a performer in movies or TV shows. Rie Rasmussen is primarily a model and celebrity who could probably handle a comedic role, but she has difficulty managing this melodramatic role even as an experienced actress. The film simply presents itself too seriously and tries to sell a relationship where the girl is half a meter taller than her suitor. It is naive, poorly thought out, and ultimately ineffective. In terms of Luc Besson's work, it can be considered an unsuccessful experiment. Overall impression: 40%.

This Czech detective story did not have an easy time during the era of real socialism, as it was mostly affected by regime concessions and ideology. Not to mention that many of the popular genre motifs could not be used in the prevailing system at all. Over time, I think that only two detective stories, coincidentally both from the same director, deserve absolute praise, and this film is one of them, alongside On the Trail of Blood. This is simply a film that has atmosphere from beginning to end, created by the black and white cinematography, the precise actors who truly act and identify with their characters, and above all, it has practically flawless music that perfectly harmonizes with the exteriors full of dirt, mud, dilapidation, and the primitiveness of some characters. It is a drama that occasionally touches upon the genre of psycho-horror, which is rarely explored in Czech cinema, and except for the somewhat theatrical escape-non-escape of the villain at the very end, I find no flaws in it. It is suspenseful, realistic, and Czech. It is typical that while British detective stories often take place in noble mansions and snobbish society, this Czech story takes place on a decaying state farm. :-) Overall impression: 95%.

When it comes to my review, I should start with something positive. I thus confirm that Olga Kurylenko really looks good in the film and is irresistibly sexy in some scenes, so much so that she remotely reminds me of my wife. Secondly, the action scenes are well shot, but that is practically an obligation within the genre nowadays. Then we have the rest. The script is traditionally stupid, as it usually goes in this kind of production, meaning it is full of logical nonsense and unbearable posing in places - the scene of the arms dealer's elimination, alias the Russian president's brother, stupid exaggeration of the main character's invulnerability and superpowers. But all of this could be tolerated within the game and genre. However, this type of film stands and falls with the casting of the main character, and he is simply not charismatic. Moreover, as an assassin who commits assassinations as inconspicuously and elegantly as possible, he is as inconspicuous as a boy who comes to elementary school with an AK-47. The whole mysterious Organization in the background has ridiculous rituals and strange uniformity that makes it easily identifiable and laughable for the moviegoer. For the genre fans to take their action hero seriously, he should be much tougher and more charismatic. Overall impression: 20%.