gudaulin

Zardoz is a highly controversial film. Rather, it depends on the approach we have to film production and what we expect from this film. It thoroughly breaks established genre conventions and if we approach it as a classic entertaining spectacle, it will inevitably end badly. It is, in a way, an experiment that is difficult to find parallels to in world film production. Its value lies in its originality and uniqueness, as the commercial effect of a work like this is insignificant and it is more suitable for film festivals or film clubs. It is a dystopian spectacle about a bleak post-apocalyptic world where the elite have decided to isolate themselves from the outside world. The plot is confusing, and the screenwriter and director do not cater to the viewer and burden them with a mosaic narrative style and philosophical implications, making it harder to consume. Sean Connery came to the lead role reluctantly, like a blind man playing the violin, as he simply needed money back then. He didn't understand what the film was really about, and it is a very unique thing in his filmography. It really isn't another Bond film. Overall impression: 80%.

This is the space version of the popular film Jumanji, but somewhat weaker, less humorous, and with worse special effects due to its lower budget. On the other hand, it is still watchable, and it will especially be appreciated by children aged 6 to 12 and by those who occasionally like to return to their childhood, which is also my case. You have to forgive the naive appearance of the lizard monsters and the fact that it cheaply plays the proven string of family values, and you get an average children's adventure film worth a single watch. Overall impression: 50%.

I am often drawn to contemporary Japanese films and I can give them the highest rating without any problems. However, historical themes, and especially samurai films completely miss the mark for me. I usually can't empathize with the mentality of the characters, and emotionally, the film kind of slips through my fingers, including the most famous names like Kurosawa. The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi is Kitano's contribution to the genre so popular in Japan, and he uses traditional exaggeration, when the protagonist easily defeats dozens of opponents, blood splatters everywhere, and the outcome of the battle is usually decided by a single chosen warrior. It is full of rituals derived from another culture, sometimes pathetic, sometimes naive, and practically always very exaggerated. The rational part of me views such productions with strong disdain, but fortunately, Kitano's ironic detachment helps, with jokes that undermine and wink at the story, as well as the viewer and genre fan. In addition, the film is adorned with examples of local culture, so we experience the end of the film in the spirit of a folk celebration. It also reminded me of my teenage years when I devoured similar films such as The Hunchback of Paris and The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi can be described as a romanticizing film of similar quality, aimed at a similar consumer. I thus give it 3 stars and an overall impression of 55%.

Experience has taught me that you truly get to know a person when they are exposed to extreme situations. People discard their masks and deeply hidden emotions and their hidden character traits float to the surface. The one who inspired trust disappoints, while the outsider unexpectedly surprises. Heroism is a deceitful concept. A person can behave heroically without even realizing the risks of their actions and their threatening consequences for themselves and others. Heroes are individuals who, in a different context, may appear as adventurers and irresponsible individuals. Medals for bravery are awarded in times of war to those who would have ended up in prison or in a psychiatric ward during peacetime. The sad hero of this story does not want to be a hero. Risking his life is the last thing he would do. But sometimes life gets in the way. The created situation didn't feel artificial to me, and I had no problem with the psychological persuasiveness of the characters. For me, it is one of the most successful war films in Czech cinema. I also appreciate that it is not schematic when portraying the enemy. The German commander is not a clear monster, as he acts under the pressure of circumstances and it is evident that he does not try to push the situation to extremes. Overall impression: 75%.

In his early films, Woody was lively and showcased a whole geyser of gags that the audience loved, but then he longed to have more serious storytelling and "more serious" subjects. However, the audience desired that old good comedian and did not accept his seriously inclined films. Especially Stardust Memories ended in a painful failure - and I write this with the knowledge that in the case of Woody Allen's work, it was never about box office hits. Woody responded by returning to his comedic roots, but he approached it differently nonetheless. The humor in Zelig is more subtle and sophisticated, and the film is much more demanding both in terms of the script and production. The result is a satirical mystification, where Woody mocks conformity through the story of a man - a chameleon, who perfected his effort not to draw attention to himself and blend in with his surroundings. He is capable of not only changing his political beliefs or religious affiliation as needed but also his gender or skin color. With a terrifying ease, he adapts to any social environment and community. The Ku Klux Klan sees in his ability to become a member of any racial minority the greatest danger to America, while in Germany, Zelig becomes an enthusiastic Nazi. On another level, the film is also an excellent parody of biographical documentaries. Woody used authentic film material from the 1920s and 1930s and combined it with newly edited shots. The fictional Zelig thus appears in periodicals and documentary footage with real historical figures, and Allen lets actual experts talk about the whole case. Zelig is certainly among the most interesting and playful of Allen's films, and I admire the ant-like work and ideas, but this film is not a spontaneous favorite for me. Overall impression: 80%.

I understand that September 11th was a huge shock for the United States and shook the confidence of a superpower, something that the Soviet Union was unable to do throughout the entire Cold War. I understand the need to come to terms with the execution of the mastermind of the attack through artistic means, and I also understand the power of symbols. However, I was surprised by the flood of awards from festivals. To be clear, it is somewhat of an art to make a chase for the world's most wanted terrorist so boring, unengaging, and tedious. It is almost incomprehensible that even scenes of torture or assassinations are emotionally empty, no passage is able to draw the viewer into the game, and everything is mechanical, cold, and flat. The presence of acting stars does not help at all, as this directorial style could easily be utilized by unknown second-rate actors and the result would be the same. I do not understand the superlatives regarding the final action. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that alongside the ridiculously drawn-out footage, the film is harmed most by the minimal distance from the events. It is evident from what is portrayed that the creators, just like American institutions, have not understood the truth about Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda has never been a vertically built, centrally controlled organization with a strong leader at the helm. It is more like an "international workers' movement," a community of people united by Islamist ideologies and drawing strength from the conservative environment of Islamic society. Osama was important for the Western world, not for his fellow believers, and at the time of his execution, he was long gone from the game. Overall impression: 35%.

Dramatized documentaries with scripted passages always carry a potential risk of manipulation, but Disaster at Chernobyl is among the significantly better films that have been made about the Chernobyl disaster. I can of course imagine a more sober and informatively charged documentary, but it is clear that the creators aim to appeal to the widest audience possible, and dry scientific and technical facts without an emotional overlay would discourage many viewers. Just to illustrate - tests are usually conducted at night when there is the least demand for electricity, and the test being carried out was no exception. The accident was mostly influenced by the political and cultural environment in the Soviet Union, and in that regard, Disaster at Chernobyl hit the nail on the head. Overall impression: 70%.

Roberto Saviano is an investigative journalist who angered the Italian underworld bosses so much with his book about the Camorra that he has to spend the rest of his life in barracks under police protection and wherever he goes, he is accompanied by a large group of bodyguards. However, this unfavorable lifestyle allows him enough peace and time for his work. This is how a new book came into being, which the Italian team fully utilized and created a series that is among the best in television production in recent years. The Italian peninsula is small for Saviano, so he focused on the global drug business. He maps the journey of cocaine from the American continent to Europe. It is a bloody journey accompanied by corruption, clashes with competition, and interventions by state power. The viewer follows three storylines that eventually intersect, and four groups of players who participate in the dirty business. Someone becomes a winner, while someone else pays the highest price. The series resembles the title of an older Soderbergh film, Traffic. Don't expect positive characters here, they have little significance as victims of ruthless predators. The series is not diluted by a large number of episodes and therefore contains no filler. Its main value lies in the characters - cunning, hard as granite, willing to take risks, and ruthless as Nemesis. For genre fans, it is a treat that would be a mistake to miss. Overall impression: 95%.

Fincher is simply good, and his version of the investigation of the legendary murder series in the American West, whose perpetrator yearned for fame and manipulated the media, has undeniable tension, a long runtime, a good pace, and I hardly find any weaknesses to criticize Fincher for. For me, Zodiac holds a higher place than the artificial cult thriller Seven. Perhaps only due to the enormous amount of facts, evidence, characters, and witness statements that Fincher tried to fit into his film, making it difficult for the viewer to orient themselves. In the end, I am inclined to give it only 4 stars. Most importantly, Fincher shows a clear distinction between the fictional world of crime stories and detective tales and the grim reality where investigators are confronted with poor resources, incompetence of superiors, stupidity, and the sensationalism of many pseudo-witnesses. On the other hand, they are required to irrefutably prove the guilt of a suspect based on evidence, so that the jury cannot acquit them. Overall impression: 85%. By the way, in two scenes where he deviates from the documentary style toward thriller tension, the director demonstrates his expertise. The scene with the mother in the car on the night highway and, above all, the visit to the old projectionist and the joint trip to the underground spaces of the house have genuine horror tension and atmosphere.

I don't know the book, or the original adaptation from the 1960s, so I can't compare them. The series has a very slow pace and typically Eastern Slavic lyricism. Where an American series would add five jokes, Russians skillfully deliver one joke, although not a bad one. The second thing is the screenplay, which slides into caricature, and the third downside is the atmosphere of Soviet Russia in the 1920s. Viewers unfamiliar with the local realities may not understand or notice many references at all. The series is characterized by a subtler, unobtrusive humor, but it has one significant advantage, and that is one of the most talented Russian actors of today. Oleg Menshikov was even criticized for wasting his talent on a mere television project. Taking everything into account, three stars are just right. Overall impression: 60%. The series will most likely be enjoyed by fans of Russian classics, such as Bulgakov.