gudaulin

Excalibur is considered by my generation as the first contact with the fantasy genre, and its influence on shaping the ideas of Western cinema fans was undeniable and very strong. This can reliably be traced in nostalgic comments made by others. During my youth, questioning the quality of Excalibur was unthinkable, but it's 2019 and everything is different now. Anachronisms in weaponry and attire leave me unfazed this time, as it is after all a fairy tale and not a historical story. The omnipresent clumsiness, whether it concerns the way the Arthurian legend is told, the theatrical performances of the actors led by Nigel Terry, or the movements of the extras in shiny metal imitations of armor, is undeniable and at times truly painful. Where the film strives to be enchanting and mystical, it now appears kitschy and unintentionally funny. The music has withstood the test of time, and the camera can leave a decent impression, but otherwise, there are few reasons to revisit Excalibur. Within the genre, not only the adaptation of The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones have convincingly surpassed it, but also a number of other lesser-known projects. Overall impression: 55%. The lackadaisical nature of Boorman's direction is evidenced by a scene where two running knights have lit cigarettes in their mouths...

Parasite feels like a relationship with an actress who brings her roles home. You never know who will come through your door in the evening. Bong Joon-ho's film starts as a genuine comedy that increasingly intertwines with social drama, and then without warning, it begins to ruthlessly settle the score with its heroes. Personally, I have counted six genres with which the director works and interestingly mixes them. If Bong Joon-ho could avoid the East Asian butchery, I would even flirt with giving the film five stars. In the past, I have written that if I have a fundamental problem with any globally recognized cinema, it is precisely South Korean cinema for its fascination with violence and its never-failing ability to shock with bizarre mental processes and the strange actions of its characters. Bong Joon-ho's piece managed to avoid this for the most part, and although his story about the widening gap between social classes is firmly rooted in local culture, the message is globally understandable. Bong Joon-ho deserves praise for being able to skillfully maneuver between the interests of various groups in the audience - it is entertaining, original, provocative, and not afraid to harshly show the vast differences in opportunities within an outwardly prosperous and efficiently managed society. I don't always agree with Bong Joon-ho and I consider his film Snowpiercer, where he also attempted a genre mix with a shallow message, to be a prime example of failure, but I can wholeheartedly recommend Parasite. Give the family of exemplary losers from the basement a chance, they will likely surprise you. Overall impression: 85%.

Grease can serve as an easy target for aesthetes who deeply despise the mainstream and light entertainment because that's exactly what Grease without a doubt is. However, it is stylish, choreographically and musically on a professional level, and apart from the fact that I have never found a liking for John Travolta, it is very well cast. There are not many musicals that would stand the test of time and Grease definitely succeeds in that regard. At the time, the critics accepted Grease with great doubts - but you know critics, they often miss the mark in their categorical judgments. That a similar project can turn out much worse is evidenced when comparing it to Saturday Night Fever, which was made at the same time with the same John Travolta in the lead role. Overall impression: 75%.

Space Station 76 is neither sci-fi, comedy, or drama. In the end, it just amounts to incredible boredom and a complete producer failure. The 70s style was primarily meant to save money for the project and it doesn't have any other actual purpose. It's desperately studio-driven and desperately impotent. The actors actually have nothing to do. It's not even bad enough to be attractive in its own way. It's a waste of time. Overall impression: 10%.

I can imagine that in a shortened version and under the direction of a more talented director, this could have been one of the three parts of a great anthology film set during the Slovak National Uprising. However, Vido Horňák is not even an average director, he is a nobody who knows how to perfectly kill the dramatic potential of the literary source. It is still present there, you can sense the tension, but with this type of adaptation, it is muted and devalued. The story is definitely a page-turner, but watching long minutes of a man walking will not entertain most viewers. The film is made bearable by the inner voice of the narrator, who conveys the thoughts of the resistance fighters. I would have appreciated it if the director had done the same with the commander of the German unit. Overall impression: 40%.

I do not question that Julia Jentsch is a prominent representative of the middle generation of German actresses, nor that there were several interesting faces of the emerging acting generation in the series, which I hope to see in more prominent German films and series in the future. However, the problem is the mediocre directing and mediocre screenplay, which in today's high competition do not give a reason to prefer The Vanishing. Similar topics and genres are sold much better by the competition. Overall impression: 45%.

The form is nothing special, just talking heads and a few archival TV shots, but the content is fascinating. The 90s with wild capitalism, post-communist chaos, corruption, and the failure of state administration on display. I thought this only happened in American cities in the 30s or in Italy, but the Slovaks managed to outdo many famous criminal organizations worldwide. A great crime film or series could be made about each criminal case and its protagonists, which we could comment on with phrases like "the screenwriter really let their imagination run wild, it's brilliantly conceived, but fortunately, the reality of life is soberer." Overall impression: 85%.

A lovely miniature, the essence of what I adore about Anton Chekhov, i.e., irony sometimes turning into sarcasm, a sense for detail, capturing the essence of the problem, and wonderful characters. A glimpse into the Russian "better" society of the 19th century at your fingertips. Pivec and Chramostová are magnificent, and Pešek is well-cast and does what he can. Overall impression: 90%.

McMafia represents the McDonaldization of genre and theme. It serves its viewers a globalized product that can be consumed without problems by a Czech family from a panel housing estate, Bedouins in the deserts of the Middle East, or an Indian family from a slum in a metropolis. There are frequent changes in locations, images from the life of high society, and superficial moralizing on the topic of capitalism. It is shallow and inauthentic. If I were to look for a comparison in the field of music, I would liken McMafia to catchy pop-rock. In many details, it is unbelievably naive, even stupid, and the character development is implausible, and so are the characters' decisions. If there is an assassination, you can bet that the perpetrator will be a seductive model, and brutality is regularly replaced by melodrama. The cast, within what the series wants to be, is decent, but it is such run-of-the-mill commercialism that also pretends to be something more significant, that I don't even want to give it an average rating of 3 stars. Overall impression: 45%.

I have been looking forward to this movie since I saw the trailer and found out that Joaquin Phoenix, a charismatic character actor who can infuse ambiguity and mystery into his characters, would play The Joker. The film's victory at the Venice Film Festival and the enthusiastic reviews only ignited my anticipation even more. However, the result is a cold shower and the feeling of the biggest film disappointment of the year. Spectacular action scenes, superheroes, and battles are nowhere to be found in Joker, and the film's inclusion in the comic book Batman universe is actually unnecessary and confusing. That's just a side note for those who prefer this type of experience because I didn't miss any of it. I wanted to witness the transformation of a human character, to see a man who gradually loses the ground under his feet, succumbs to darkness, and becomes a monster. Arthur was supposed to be a disturbing, unsettling, and dangerous character in my eyes. I was supposed to fear him. I have no problem with Phoenix's performance, as he gives his maximum, as expected, and greatly contributes to the film. My problem lies in the interpretation of the Joker character. Arthur reminds me of Theodore from the movie Her - that is, his "patheticness." Phoenix's Joker does not evoke dark premonition and fear, but rather sympathy. His laughter is not sinister; they are sounds of a fragile desperate person whom you would rather take by the hand and comfort (everything will be alright, little guy) - even when he commits murder. In reality, Arthur doesn't undergo any development. Although he commits several crimes during the film, they could have easily happened at the very beginning. From the first minute, he is a miserable man trapped in the web of mental illness, self-pity, and bitterness. Moreover, he is an utterly peculiar character. A man recently released from a mental institution, who works as a clown visiting sick children in the hospital, even though there is no more optimism in him than in someone dying of cancer and no more kindness than in a black plague epidemic. The director clearly modeled his antihero after Travis Bickle, the iconic character from the famous Scorsese film. He also transparently references this by casting film veteran Robert De Niro. However, Joker lacks the drive, energy, determination, and stubbornness of Taxi Driver. In the end, Joker fails as a movie that wants to entertain, as it clumsily treads water for the first two-thirds of its runtime, but also as a film that wants to be more than just a comic book spectacle. I sense an attempt at transcendence similar to the pretentiousness that emerges from Aronofsky's films, but as an existential psychological drama, Joker doesn't work - Todd Phillips is too predictable, shallow, and self-righteous for that. Giving Joker less than three stars wouldn't be fair, given Joaquin's phenomenal performance. Phillip's craftsmanship cannot be denied; he beautifully creates a Gotham environment reminiscent of neglected city centers in American metropolises from the 1970s. Hildur Guðnadóttir's music delivers precisely what it should in terms of emotional impact, and the cinematography and production design are just as grand as you would expect from a similar American blockbuster. However, we don't watch movies for their cinematography or music, but for the story and characters... Overall impression: 55%.