gudaulin

Mindhunter provided me with my strongest TV experience of 2017. If there is anything that could harm it in the eyes of viewers, it is somewhat paradoxically its connection with David Fincher, from whom, as the author of the legendary film Seven, you expect a bit of thrilling excitement and corresponding genre elements. Gunfights, chases, and fights are something you would search for in vain in Mindhunter. The categorization of a thriller seems somewhat confusing to me because it is much more of a psychological drama, which reminds me a bit of the HBO series In Treatment. Nevertheless, such precisely modeled, convincing, and charismatic characters are practically non-existent elsewhere in other series to this extent. Every detail fits perfectly, which can play and often does play its role in the story's structure. If you don't mind that the series is mainly driven by dialogues, give it a chance and watch two intellectuals in the ranks of the FBI who, along with their colleague from the civilian sector, try to lay the foundations of behavioral science, use it in practice, and repeatedly come into contact with multiple murderers and psychopaths, which of course has an impact on their own psyche. For me, this is the highest level of sophistication that I probably won't get to indulge in again soon as a fan of various series. Overall impression: 95%.

I will give it three stars so that I won't be seen as a faultfinder, but I'm not all that convinced about it. Incomparably better films can often be found in the blue section on FilmBooster. Certainly, within the Czech film production, the film is above average, but let's face it, most of us don't really have illusions about its quality. What works is the chemistry between the two main characters, very solidly portrayed by Ivan Trojan and Jiří Dvořák, and the part with the jokes making fun of Christianity. However, this film is an example of the decline of post-Communist film production. There is an evident lack of budget here, and although I'm not a perfectionist, in terms of grandiosity and cinematography, it's far from as good as other Czech films. The scenery of Český Krumlov does a lot for the film, but otherwise, Angel of the Lord 2 is basically a TV film. The screenplay is only average and it doesn't know how to utilize its characters and all the motifs it introduces. Some of the jokes sound forced, and the trio of thieves is rather awkward, just as it is awkward that the representatives of heaven and hell cannot face them and repeatedly resort to escape. I don't like the presence of celebrities in cameo roles and other things. If you compare Strach's film with the pitiful production of fairy tales on Czech TV of the last decade, it may seem good, but the more I think about it, the less I am able to defend that third star. Overall impression: 50%. Perhaps Strach is owed that third star due to the fact that I was expecting it to be much worse...

A stylishly magnificent tribute to old trash films, the beautifully captured atmosphere of the late 50s and 60s, an unconventional romance that grabs your heart, and a great performance by Sally Hawkins in the lead role. I have so far considered her a decent comedic actress, but what she showcased in this film has catapulted her very high in all aspects of character acting. Personally, I appreciate Guillermo del Toro's artistic playfulness, which reminds me of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's earlier works. Then there's the game with details, which you will probably fully grasp only upon repeated viewing. With this film, my poor knowledge of English came back to haunt me because many details escaped me. I wanted to know why the Golden Globes were awarded to the film, and now I know that they are in the best hands. So far, the rating on FilmBooster seems too low to me, the film probably hasn't yet found its target audience. Thank you, Guillermo, for the industrial charm of old times. Overall impression: 90%.

If one side of war is represented by the front line with whizzing bullets and artillery fire, then the film actually shows us only the other side. In the first shots, American infantry cautiously advances into the heart of a city, but we are spared street fighting, and the war, as portrayed by American commanders who witness the opportunism and remarkable pragmatism of the local elite, takes on an almost operatic dimension. However, step by step, it becomes apparent that even a war without bombings and bloody massacres exacts its toll. From the highest toll in the case of a minefield to forced child prostitution - it is indeed better to sell one's child's body than to let them die of hunger. Cavani manages to show the absurdity of wartime conditions in a sometimes outright comical manner, reminding me in several moments (such as the theft of the tank and trading with well-fed German prisoners of war) of the novel "How I Won the War." Captain Malaparte is an informed narrator of the story and he has the ideal position from the viewer's perspective. He can interact with all layers of Italian society, from the upper ten thousand to the lost existences on the outskirts of the city. For Mastroianni, the role of an Italian officer with frontline experience was an interesting deviation from the template of intellectual and melancholic characters in Bolognini's films. Overall impression: 90%.

In the spring of 1929, the Weimar Republic experienced a period of prosperity and stability - the last in its short existence. However, it was not for everyone and not forever. May Day in Berlin becomes a shocking bloody spectacle, and the carefree visitors of decadent cabaret performances certainly do not share the concerns of the inhabitants of the extensive impoverished neighborhoods. Nevertheless, Berlin is an exciting place to live during that era, where many thrilling human dramas and remarkable stories take place. Babylon Berlin combines a variety of elements that increase its attractiveness and are traditionally appreciated by viewers: ambiguous, constantly surprising characters, and a sophisticated script that cleverly intertwines several storylines and smartly works with multiple secrets. Slowly and gradually, you discover the motives and intentions of the actors in this intricate game. You will find passion, love, betrayal, crime, and hatred, as well as intrigues and conspiracies, high political games, and petty schemes. Babylon Berlin also has a very decent budget compared to other European productions. As a spectacle, it may not reach the grandeur of the most elaborate productions that overseas studios are capable of producing, but the portrayal of 1920s Berlin is convincing and attractive nonetheless. We were looking for a series that we could watch as a family, and in competition with the acclaimed Big Little Lies, Babylon Berlin emerged as the winner among all participants. Therefore, give the thin police investigator with troubled sleep and an unpleasant war past a chance, and follow the tracks of a train heading from Russia to Berlin, leaving behind corpses and shattered hopes. Overall impression: 90%.

Albert and Édouard came from radically different social backgrounds, yet they became friends because they met in the trenches of World War I. To fully embrace their misfortune, at the end of the bloody war, they serve under an ambitious and ruthless opportunist who wants to make a name for himself and build his position on the corpses of his subordinates. Unlike their friends, they experienced peace. One of them may be disfigured, the other unemployed, poor, and abandoned, but many others ended up worse off. If you're unlucky, you have to go and find some luck, and that's how the idea arises to take advantage of patriotic euphoria and make a living with a bit of the hypocrisy of the rich and powerful. But the world is never quite big enough that you won't come across those who represent your worst nightmares. See You Up There is, last but not least, a comedy. I hesitate to use the term "dark" because this designation is usually associated with a certain amount of cynicism, and this is not a cynical film. It is a comedy about sad things and human tragedies that you have to deal with and come to terms with. Dupontel's film, however, is much more genre-spanning. During the opening part, it surprisingly functions as an impressive war film that can convey the horrors and despair of World War I in a small space. Above all, it is a visually remarkable film with a special poetics that somewhat reminds one of the work of French colleague Jeunet. Compared to him, Dupontel is more civil, not working so prominently with slapstick or enchanted by camera filters. He is not a showman, but rather he masterfully works with human emotions, and he can move you and evoke catharsis, entertain, and provoke reflection. See You Up There is one of those films that represent a spectacle in the best sense of the word, and any film enthusiast should go to the movie theater to see it. For me, it's worth five stars, and I am convinced that I have seen the best French film of the year. Overall impression: 95%. If I compare it to to Jean-Pierre Jeunet's work, this film also has a weakness for those viewers who prioritize plot over atmosphere, as the poetic atmosphere sometimes takes precedence over the drama and the story.

Despite its very average rating on FilmBooster, I had the feeling for quite a long while that I was watching a three-star film, not one that would get you ecstatic, but one that wouldn't bore you and had nothing blatantly wrong with it. However, as the minutes went by, I got the impression that Raymond's story was fading out. The screenwriter seemed unsure of how to approach this material. It's not so much a biographical film because we don't follow Raymond from the moment he tried to make it in the industry with a few dollars in his pocket, and we don't see his artistic beginnings or his initial successes. We only get to know him when he is already brimming with confidence, with both millions and mistresses and nothing significant really happens in his life - unless we consider the exchange of life partners significant. From a dramatic perspective, the film simply doesn't work. It can be considered to some extent as a picture of the free sixties when sexism was rampant and the golden era of pornography began, but the film doesn't work with that systematically either. The designation "a glimpse into the lives of one family that got rich" would suit it the most in the end. In the last third, the film starts to take on dangerously sentimental positions when it addresses drug addiction and the daughter's illness. The Look of Love is watchable, but it's just a run-of-the-mill spectacle that will easily slip your mind afterward. Overall impression: 45%.

Whiplash works on the principle of a wrestling match. A treacherous, ruthless wrestler who breaks all fair play rules intentionally provokes the audience and tries to incite them against himself in order to (apparently) triumph over his opponent and whip up the emotions of the viewers to the maximum. The director manipulates his audience in the same way - and that's my fundamental problem with the film. I simply don't like manipulative directors, which is probably why I didn't warm up to Aronofsky and I have been avoiding Lars von Trier's recent works. On the other hand, Damien Chazelle brilliantly directed his film, and it's evident that he fulfilled the task he set for himself. He was able to lean on the excellent acting performances of both main actors, especially Simmons, who is absolutely convincing in the role of a tyrant, and it's clear that he savored that role. About halfway through the film, I said to myself: "Dear God, I'm watching a sports film whose scheme has been transferred to a different setting." This could actually work, more or less, in certain sports disciplines, such as combat sports, but it would probably work much worse, if at all, in team sports, because a similar coach's strategy would completely upset the team and ruin their psychology. And the idea that something similar could work in reality within a musical ensemble is completely absurd. However, yes, top conductors are often narcissists and it's not easy to work with them, but they would certainly not dare to apply something like that to their players, because only coordination ensures success. Moreover, I believe that in the school environment in America, they are very sensitive to barbaric behavior like that which conductor Fletcher exhibited toward his students, and he would come up against resistance from the students and their parents much sooner than the film suggests. In the end, I lean towards giving it only three stars because it's done for effect, which doesn't suit my taste. I want to believe in the film, and Chazelle didn't succeed in that. Overall impression: 60%.

Reese Witherspoon has decided to reminisce about her more ambitious beginnings and go back to the time before she melted into average commercial comedies. Unfortunately, for my taste, this film is predictable and not very interesting from a psychological and dramatic perspective. I can't remember the last time I found flashbacks so annoying, as they completely disrupt the storytelling. Without them, I would probably give it a cautious three stars - but like this, I can't even give it that. Overall impression: 45%.

When Michalkov returned years later to his apparently most famous work, Burnt by the Sun, he miraculously revived all of his dead heroes and filmed Burnt by the Sun 3. He encountered overwhelming rejection from film critics and a significant portion of film fans. The criticisms that appeared among the reviews I considered to be a certain form of posing and I tended to take a protective stance towards the film. I simply tried to discover and highlight the positive aspects of it. The film allows us to hope for a better conclusion to the trilogy with its open ending, and although it undeniably represents a significant decline in quality in all aspects, it is still a great war spectacle. Burnt by the Sun 3 is lucky in that the film fans who rejected Burnt by the Sun 2 did not bother to watch the final part at all, so paradoxically, it has a higher rating on FilmBooster than Burnt by the Sun 2, which, from my point of view, is more acceptable. Only in Burnt by the Sun 3 did all of Nikita Michalkov's vices and filmmaking failures fully manifest themselves in all their nudity. What I would criticize in the final part had already appeared in Michalkov's previous films, but here it takes on monstrous proportions. All that whiny melodrama, sentimentality, and pathos have swollen to terrifying dimensions. What's worse, Michalkov sells the idiosyncrasies of the Russian soul and the specifics of Soviet society in such a way that the film seems absurd and the behavior of its characters is constantly out of touch. The film also bores for most of its inflated duration. The final twenty-minute transformation of the citadel cast with the help of 15,000 wooden fittings turns the drama into an unintentional slapstick that can entertain. Unlike the second part, I find no excuse here, and with its terrifying literalness, Burnt by the Sun 3 represents a slap in the face to Michalkov's lifelong body of work. This is simply horrible, and I deeply regret that I allowed myself to be lured in. Overall impression: 10% for the production design.