gudaulin

Fellini's alter ego is bitterly reflected in the film: "I had the impression that I had something to say. Something very simple. I wanted to make a film that would be useful to everyone." The trouble is that at the end of the screening, the viewer may come up with another line that will also be heard: "I have nothing to say at all, but I'll say it anyway." With the passage of years, it is clear that a significant part of Fellini's work was actually about himself, his life, his ideas, and his problems. Fascination with himself is clearly felt in every shot of 8½. Fellini was going through a creative crisis at the time, groping helplessly over how to make the material he intended to shoot. So, he took a step aside, and out of necessity, a film about a director was born, who - well, you can guess. Writing and shooting about oneself is easy. You have first-hand information, and you don't have to compromise or argue with the screenwriter. Fellini does look at himself with irony, but also no longer with distance. The film is about a creator who is admired, an artist who is the center of attention, and this aphrodisiac of fame is something he is already used to and enjoys. The famous Italian director has never been fond of editing, and it must be recognized that only a madman could edit himself. The result was exhausting for me, and soon, the pantheon of characters around the genius began to annoy me and despite my best efforts, I couldn't finish 8½ in one go - it took me two evenings. There was no catharsis at the end, but rather a feeling of relief that I finally got through it. Sadly, I can't give Fellini more than two stars. Besides – he had more than enough fun with himself. Overall impression: 40%.

Greenaway's film is one of those rare cases when, despite my undeniable stinginess, I would be willing to leave the movie theater after half an hour and forget the money because I saved a bit of my increasingly scarce time. The question is: is it possible to make a film that is supposed to deal with the dark sides of the human soul, sexuality, and the lives of wealthy people unrestricted by social conventions in an unbelievably boring way? Yes. Greenaway proves that with a little effort, it can be done. If I were a producer, I would rather burn the money in the fireplace than invest it in a similar spectacle. It is an immensely self-centered and difficult-to-digest film, primarily intended for the festival circuit audience, for the small circle of true intellectuals, and a considerably larger circle of those who think they are intellectuals so that they can eagerly debate the hidden meanings of the film after seeing it. At the beginning, one character asks another: "Do you think leading directors make their films to satisfy their sexual fantasies?" - the other replies: "I think most of them do." If Greenaway made this film to satisfy his sexual fantasies, then he is a very boring and eccentric patron. This film is neither provocative nor spicy, and in no way is it true to life, because I have encountered a fair number of bizarre characters, sociopaths, and nutcases, but I have never come across anything remotely similar to these film characters. Overall impression: 5%.

The attribute 8 MM deserves above all is EFFECTIVE. The story from the porn industry is appropriately brutal and repulsive in its subject matter, with a range of twisted characters from the gallery and the decadent environment of high society. The film is energetic and attractive due to the positive hero played decently by Nicolas Cage, complemented by a diligent improved sidekick, and several very skillfully crafted scenes. Overall, it has a depressing tone, which led to exceptionally great commercial success and acclaim from movie fans. It's not Joel Schumacher's best film, but it ranks among the better ones in its genre. Overall impression: 70%.

Where Wall-E attempts to suggest a depressive post-apocalyptic atmosphere in the first half, 9 fully develops its vision of a world devastated by war and does not care about the moods of the child audience. The visual aspect is amazing and because it usually plays a significant role in my rating, I lean toward a five-star rating, even though I have a problem with the philosophical aspect of the film and consider its outcome unsatisfactory. Where, for example, Avatar has a philosophy that is too primitive, the philosophical dimension of 9 is possibly too complicated and uncertain. 9 depicts the adventures of nine extraordinary beings with a robotic foundation who look like rag dolls combined with the idea of artificial machines from the late 19th century. The retro-stylization, which seems to come from late Jules Verne novels, along with the gloomy visual aspect in shades of brown, is exceptional for an animated film made today and it boldly disrupts the idea of a positively inclined film that parents go to see with their young children. The heroes of the story face monstrous machines, from which hatred and dehumanized evil of technology are evident at first sight, escaping human hands. The creators of the film seem to work with the concerns of today's inhabitants of the developed world, to whom technology seemingly gets on their nerves and they dream of a return to a simple life in harmony with nature. The battle of the dolls with the devilish invention is full of adventurous action and unique effects. The idea that the story should be heading toward is somewhat lost under their fire, but it was still a strong experience for me. Overall impression: 90%.

The Soviet film school essentially produced war films on an assembly line, but 9th Company follows more so the style and content of American war films from the 1980s. In other words, it is a combination of Full Metal Jacket and Platoon, which is also mimicked in the film's title. It is not a cheap imitation, but rather a very solid piece of craftsmanship and, truth be told, one of the best war films of the last decade. Thanks to the large investments in Russian cinema in recent years and coproduction, it is not a financially deprived film either, so viewers can enjoy the military equipment, generously conceived shots of the military base, and large-scale battles. As for casting, acting performances, and directing, I have no significant objections, and for about 70% of the film I thought I was watching a five-star film that stood out for its exceptionally high level of authenticity. I had the opportunity to speak at length with an eyewitness of the Afghan war, who spent eight years in the war zone, and his narrative aligned with the atmosphere of the film. The attack on the transport plane or the ambush of a military convoy in the pass perfectly fits the way the war was fought at that time. The plane destruction scene is also visually impressive. However, the final grand battle comes, which, from the perspective of a popular culture viewer, is again gratifyingly filmed and directed, but it is unrealistic and reminded me of heroic images from the Soviet era, like "the last heroic defenders of Sevastopol resist the fascist superiority." Ultimately, the closing credits depict the nature of this conflict far more soberly when it comes to the number of casualties. Similar open battles were exceptional in the Afghan war because they demonstrated better tactical preparedness and greater firepower of the Soviet army. It is similar, after all, in present-day Iraq. Otherwise, it is interesting to compare this Russian film precisely with American films about the Vietnam War. American films - even those with an anti-war orientation - depict their soldiers as winners, and if an American soldier falls, he must almost inevitably shoot at least ten Vietnamese soldiers before he dies. Russian soldiers die like flies. Bullets find them much more often than they do the Afghan rebels. The primary goal of 9th Company is to portray Russian soldiers as men who are not afraid to die but fulfill their mission and at the same time show that this war was not theirs. Their deployment was decided by the elders of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Today's Russia is not so much following the era of the Soviet Union as it is emphasizing pre-revolutionary Russia and particularly highlighting service to the country and self-sacrifice. At the same time, there is not a single scene in the film where an Afghan civilian clearly dies. The goal of the film is not self-flagellation like in American production; Russian soldiers, after all, fulfill the tasks assigned to them....Overall impression: 80%.

Before watching this I once again remembered how much I disliked Věra Chytilová. Her strong feminism and dominant personality simply don't match my values and personality. Among other things, she said an interesting sentence that "a story is just bait for fools," which she used when there was no other choice because a story is the last thing she's interested in. Maybe that's one of the reasons why we didn't get along, and except for The Very Late Afternoon of a Faun and The Jester and the Queen, I really don't much care for her films. A Bag of Fleas represents, in a way, the opposite of Forman's films, which happen to fascinate me. Both fall under the label of the Czech New Wave, and yet the result is so dramatically different. Her early films remind me more than anything else of directorial exercises at a film school and mapping the possibilities of the film medium. This film about girls in a boarding school is full of banality and resembles a bunch of hens in a small courtyard. Overall impression: 35%.

Battle of the Warriors is a monumental historical fantasy loosely based on ancient Chinese legends. Its strength lies in its grandeur and well-executed crowd war scenes, as well as the relatively non-theatrical East Asian style of acting, which I found refreshing compared to Kurosawa's samurai epics. Of course, warfare in ancient China was different; this film is more of a showcase of certain war elements from medieval China and especially Mongolia. The film offers heroic music, pathos, self-sacrifice, betrayal, romantic motifs, and intrigues - essentially everything you would expect from such a spectacle. There is a lot of talking, which can be a disadvantage since the dialogue and especially the philosophical aspect didn't resonate with me. The ideas of the warrior Ge Li about love among people and nations, and all the noble speeches that are a mixture of Confucian and Buddhist philosophical views, don't appeal to me - to be honest, I believe that the cynical pragmatists like Metternich, rather than lovers of truth and love and institutions like the UN, are responsible for the local and short-term peaceful episodes from a historical perspective. Overall impression: 80%.

ABBA's music was a big part of my childhood, and I associated this film with their best songs. However, to be honest, the film offers nothing beyond those songs. The script is weak, and the story is almost non-existent, serving only as a flimsy bridge between musical numbers. For a documentary, it is too staged. Overall impression: 40%.

One could write many superlatives about A Beautiful Mind. It is a very professional film backed by a precise script, well cast and acted, and the direction is inventive and highly professional. The story is emotional and certainly unconventional - to have a mentally ill mathematician as the main character requires some production courage, as similar films do not automatically guarantee easy profits. On the other hand, the professional production approach is a weakness of the film. The lead role was played by a star - the great and handsome Russell Crowe, and, of course, the beautiful and charismatic Jennifer Connelly had to fall in love with him... The film literally overflows with heartfelt dialogues and boundless humanism. But in real life, everything is harder, harsher, and much sadder. I had a mentally ill family member, so I know what I'm talking about. The calculated nature of this blockbuster with its premeditated Oscar success bothered me a bit in this case. I simply cannot give five stars to this very high-quality product, it is too "polished" for that. On the other hand, there are several scenes worth mentioning: the opening play with the reflection of light on the tie is full of humor and the majority of the film unfolds in a similar spirit. Crowe approached his character a bit like the autist from Rain Man, and I'm not sure if that is appropriate for schizophrenia. But with an army of advisors, they probably couldn't have got it wrong... Overall impression 80%.

I either haven't seen Deray's film or I have completely blocked it out after a few decades, so I don't have the ability to compare the approaches of both directors and decide which one is more effective. Guadagnino's film seems somewhat dull, muted, and unremarkable to me. A Bigger Splash was supposed to be a combination of thriller and psychological drama, but the director would have had to work much more with the characters, play a sophisticated game full of hints, dose information, and veiled conflicts, which gradually and inevitably bubble to the surface only to explosively erupt in an emotional outburst, instead of using lengthy shots of the sunny Italian nature. Only the character of the not inherently evil, but self-centered, possessive, and hedonistic producer works as it should (I'm afraid mostly thanks to the performance of the acting chameleon Ralph Fiennes rather than the director's guidance). Dakota Johnson's Lolita only gets enough space to show off her naked body and send provocative looks, which is questionable considering the immodest duration. Tilda Swinton is a casting mistake. I consider her an interesting actress destined for special categories of roles such as androgynous or asexual beings and broken women whirled through life, but with the knowledge that a) she won't read this and b) I am at a sufficient distance away. I have to say that I cannot imagine Tilda as a sexual object arousing desire and jealousy. Matthias Schoenaerts fails to act as a counterpart to Ralph Fiennes on the same level, and this lack significantly sinks the dramatic conflict. It also wouldn't hurt to cut out about 12 minutes of runtime. A Bigger Splash is watchable, but apart from Fiennes and the soundtrack, it quickly evaporates from the mind. Overall impression: 55%.