gudaulin

For thirty years, we Czechs have been living in a post-communist society, but I still haven't gotten rid of the illusion that the West works better than our corner of the world. This documentary has dispelled that misconception - the same crooks, same lies, same usurious methods, and an effort to manipulate gullible clients. What you need is caution, financial literacy, and a government that stands on the side of its citizens, not financial speculators. Overall impression: 75%.

As someone from the industry, the topic has always interested me and I was genuinely curious about the answers I would receive from the creators. The result is, to put it mildly, awkward. It's not that the documentary does not address significant trends and problems that determine the face of the contemporary energy industry, and I even consider the majority of the information truthful. The problem lies in the context and dosage, because each of these topics deserves much more space, and the way the creators put them into perspective presents a distorted reflection of reality. If the headline is true and you want to know why we pay such high electricity bills, the answer is simple. Creating a free market and thereby abolishing the philosophy of public service and subsequently practically destroying the free market by implementing the concept of preferred technologies, from which electricity must be purchased preferentially, means transferring the costs of energy transformation to the consumer. That is, after all, the logical outcome, which activists understandably refused to acknowledge. Today, the price of raw electricity is no longer significant, it can even be negative, however, the costs of network operation and necessary reserves are crucial. As the share of renewable energy sources increases, these costs will continue to rise. And even a decrease in the price of decentralized energy sources will not change that. Countries with the highest share of renewable energy sources on the market have, by far, the highest prices. The fact that the economies of many European countries are still struggling and social inequalities are increasing as the European model of the welfare state gradually crumbles, makes the above even more painful. You can ignore the big power companies, but you will not save money. Overall impression: 40%.

When the series about the tough guy with gaps in his memory grew with a fourth installment, I decided to ignore it in the movie theater, even though I consider myself a Bourne fan. The third movie hinted that the conspiratorial world of the secret services of the United States and their manipulation of the human psyche is evolving in a way that I don't like. What the third movie suggested, the fourth confirmed completely. The form remained and what fans liked about the Bourne series, namely adrenaline overdose, dynamics, and handheld camera, can reliably be found here. Even Matt Damon confirms that he continues to visit the gym intensively. The problem, however, is the content. Greengrass clearly holds the opinion that it is enough for the film to be wildly thrilling, not giving the viewer time to breathe, and God forbid, start thinking about the plot, motivations, and actions of his characters. In that case, the viewer would quickly realize that the quality of the screenplay has fallen somewhere to the bottom of the ocean abyss. A lot of action stupidity has been filmed over the years, and this movie fits right into that category. It is a pity because poor Jason did not deserve such an ending... Overall impression: 40%.

The effort to enjoy Murphy's film cannot be denied. The problem lies in the fact that it misses the mark. It is a perfect case of a dysfunctional movie that does not hold up in terms of both the dramatic and comedic aspects. That's a shame considering the strong cast because, with each passing minute, this group of misfits will likely get on your nerves more and more. Woody Allen, in his weaker films from the late period, still managed to portray similar types of intellectuals from New York in a more entertaining and believable way. Overall impression: 30%.

Sully is a partially procedural drama and, in a second aspect, as is customary for Clint, a film about American patriotism, which, however, is conveyed in reasonable doses and with an understanding of human nature. It relies on the experienced Tom Hanks, who seems to have been born for such roles and does not have any significant weaknesses. The film has a reasonable length, a good screenplay, and a strong story. I would just note that I perceive the film not as a story about heroism, but about professionalism, which is, after all, very important in my profession. Overall impression: 75%.

I've always considered Robert Altman to be "my" director. That's because I don't mind his broadly conceived storytelling with many side characters, I'm not tired of the amount of subtle references to famous personalities of film history, groundbreaking works, and cult scenes. I am not bored by the typically Altmanesque lukewarm pace. I appreciate the precision and malice with which he disdains established practices of the film industry. In the case of The Player, I would avoid labeling it as a comedy, although some scenes may bring a light smile to your face. On the other hand, the elements of satire are unmissable. Among Altman's extensive filmography, I consider The Player to be his most mature work, dominated by the commanding performance of Tim Robbins in the lead role. He is, by the way, one of the three reasons why you should dedicate your time to The Player. The second reason is the clever screenplay and the last one is Altman's meticulousness. Overall impression: 90%.

The screenwriter doesn't hesitate and immediately after introducing his protagonist, he lets her brutally carry out a murder in an explosion of emotions. This arouses the expectations of fans of explicit violence. However, shortly after, he switches direction and it becomes increasingly clear that we are watching a psychological drama, where the exploration of the dark corners of the human psyche will take place, evoking memories of what we want to safely bury deep in the subconscious. I associate Jessica Biel with a beautiful face, which predestines her for the role of aesthetic additions to the story. I have always considered her acting to be average at best, but here she has risen to her best performance yet and at least she does not embarrass the series. However, the main attraction is Bill Pullman in the role of the investigator. I have doubts that this method of erasing memories would work in practice, but it is nicely filmed and evokes the right emotions in the right places. Overall impression of the 1st season: 75%.

The Romani hero of the Czech series Most! complains in one scene about how he ruined his life by stealing cars. His companion cuts him off, saying that he is just a victim. He doesn't know yet who or what, but he shouldn't be afraid, something always turns up. World cinema tends to view outsiders through the lens of sympathy and categorize them as victims of the system. Mike Leigh looks at his characters without illusions and instead of fighting for something or protesting against something, he presents a somewhat nihilistic picture of lower-class people who stumble from one crisis to another and are unable to overcome the limits imposed by their own passivity and lack of discipline. They move in circles and even the younger generation of viewers cannot find a reason for optimism. As a social statement, it is strong and truthful, and I believe in this view of British white trash. I just occasionally feel that Leigh is pushing too hard and makes his character Phil one-dimensional. This is not how an undecided man behaves, but rather a stubborn one. Otherwise, I have no objections to the casting and the actors involved deserve a thumbs-up. Overall impression: 75%.

The Czech devil has an exceptional position on a global scale. He is more of a confused companion for gamblers, or an executor of justice where secular justice is a mockery of morality. Krampus is a different sort. At first glance, fear emanates from him and he exudes the threat of brutal violence and mystical cruelty. The movie, which entices with the use of the name "Krampus," announces that it will be a form of entertainment for a specifically horror-oriented audience. But actions speak louder than words and this is also reflected in the quite mixed reviews. Let's be honest, how many horror comedies have you seen that weren't crippled in one way or another, or had both legs amputated? No matter what Dougherty does, he is unable to generate scares, at least not in a way that today's hardened fans of horror would fear. It's a bit better when it comes to the humor. Dougherty has learned a lot from Terry Gilliam and his devilish gingerbread cookies are successful, he has a sense of irony and occasionally comes up with a decent joke. He also relies on a likable cast of actors, led by the talented Toni Collette. Unfortunately, he is not creative enough to develop his ideas into a truly functional and visually appealing form. He relies on frantic, chaotic editing, and annoyingly stereotyped characters within the family, and he is not daring enough to turn family values upside down and mock Christmas. When I remember how Ari Aster utilized Toni Collette in Hereditary, I have the feeling that Dougherty is wasting the acting potential of his ensemble, as well as the atmosphere and ideas. The film is unfinished and rarely truly atmospheric. My review ranges between 2 and 3 stars, and considering the weak reviews he received from horror fans, this time I will support Dougherty and give the film a weak three-star rating. Overall impression: 50%.

Members of the wealthy elite often feel the need to show their human face and gain the sympathy of those below them. Both the screenwriter and director try their best, but I cannot shake the intense feeling that I am watching a stubborn and arrogant lady who is capable of driving her Indian servant to desperation and trampling on her surroundings with the same passion with which she seized the opportunity to save the theater scene. I did not find a way to connect with the character portrayed by Judi Dench, and it was only slightly better with Bob Hoskins. Furthermore, the combination of patriotism and a brothel selling erotica does not seem all that kosher to me, and where the creators feel they have captured the strongest patriotic moment, I feel unsettled. Considering the environment in which the story takes place and the names the director has at his disposal, I see untapped potential. Overall impression: 55%.