gudaulin

Watching Son of Saul was such an intense and profound experience for me that I was unable to write an immediate comment about it. The filmmakers managed to create such a high level of authenticity within the genre that I consider surpassing it practically impossible. It's a naturalistic visit to hell as if you were suddenly immersed in hot water in a cauldron, and for almost two hours, you felt the devastating effects of sulfur, flames, and smoke on your body. Son of Saul captures 24 hours of the bitter existence of a Sonderkommando member in an extermination concentration camp. We observe the world through the eyes of a dulled and exhausted man who has experienced so much horror in recent months that, due to a defense mechanism of his psyche, he perceives the surrounding world as if in partial anesthesia through filters, completely detached. However, a meeting with a boy who miraculously survived being in the gas chamber awakens human emotions in him. Because his options are extremely limited, he clings to something that seems irrational at first glance, to an act that his fellow inmates do not understand. He does his best to organize a dignified farewell to the deceased in accordance with Jewish traditions, within the limits of what he can do. Son of Saul is an unpleasant and depressing film that cannot be recommended for casual viewing. It requires a certain level of sensitivity, and the ability to capture details and infer what is suggested. On the other hand, it is not deeply encrypted either, and reading some comments left me somewhat confused. Seriously, is it really that difficult to understand what happened with Saul's son and the rabbi? Personally, I consider it to be one of the most powerful film experiences ever. Overall impression: 95%.

Rob Marshall relies on superficial attractiveness, extravagance, and exoticism. His film is not intended for the Japanese audience, as it would probably be inappropriate to cast an actress of Chinese origin in a key role. The film has great visuals, at least in the first half, with the camera gliding along the winding streets of the historic district full of undulating roofs, the graceful curves of young beauties, their meticulous make-up, and elegant kimonos. While the form is polished, the content represents a banal fairytale about how a poor girl eventually found happiness through countless hardships and obstacles, fulfilling her desires. It is shallow and, considering the excessively long runtime, quite empty. The beginning is promising, but the rawness lasts only about 15 minutes, and then it just plays along without providing any statement about the time, society, or specific characters. Though Memoirs of a Geisha looks nearly perfect, it lacks spirit and without it, it is only halfway there. It resembles Christmas decorations - beautiful at first sight, shiny, but hollow and with a short lifespan. Overall impression: 45%.

Despite the promising cast, this is definitely not a film that could compete in the box-office hit of the year category. I assume that it will only briefly appear in movie theaters and viewers will have difficulty seeing it on the big screen. The truth is that this film is one of those that are suited for a small screen because it doesn't rely on special effects and set design. I remember the astonishment caused by Brad Pitt's character as a white gypsy in Snatch among less informed viewers. In Great Britain, gypsies do not have an ethnic dimension, it is a social category, the labeling of people who live a nomadic lifestyle and have a specific value system different from the rest of the population. The protagonist of the film is also one of these travelers - on one hand, he is the most promising successor of the aging clan leader, who should one day lead the whole family, and on the other, he becomes increasingly visible as a daring rebel who sees the need to adapt to the rapidly changing world, who wants to educate his children, and who wants to say no where tradition tells him to say yes. However, the surrounding world does not particularly care about him, the power of prejudices and legitimate mistrust takes its toll. Only the family can offer a helping hand against the pressure from the surroundings. Trespass Against Us is a work that combines social and psychological drama, as well as elements of crime with action. It can be proud of its dramatic escape from the scene of a robbery, just like a purebred crime thriller. Overall impression: 70%.

At the beginning of the new millennium, no sane person would have bet even half a penny on a film with pirate themes. The theme was considered exhausted and outdated, and not suitable for the era of computers and genetic engineering. The last attempts in the genre field also ended in failure. The idea sat in a drawer for a while, but director Verbinski finally took the plunge when he came up with an original, action-packed popcorn spectacle for all generations, and with a hero who had never been seen before. Depp's pirate captain has a much closer resemblance and behavior to the hippies of the 60s than to the classic idea of a sea wolf. And even within the series of extravagant loners and oddballs he usually portrays, he is an unmistakable figure. The film is a lavishly made special effects spectacle full of exaggeration and simple, yet unoffensive humor. It is in the best sense of the word a family adventure film that, in my eyes, does not age and even after the third viewing, I have no need to change my opinion about it. It's just a shame about the unnecessary sequels that plundered and diluted the successful original. Overall impression: 85%.

Of all the creators of the French New Wave, I have watched the most from François Truffaut, and I also understand him the best. I have to say that within his work, Shoot the Piano Player does not represent anything significant, let alone a masterpiece. It is rather a plaything where the director tested the possibilities of combining several genres. While watching it, I felt that he mostly improvised and followed his current intuition. I don't see any order, well-thought-out, and coherent plan in it. Unfortunately, the script is far from perfect, and Truffaut's intentions were realized much more successfully in later decades by directors like the Coen brothers or the creators of modern multilayered TV series such as Better Call Saul or Breaking Bad. These creators are able to mix often seemingly contradictory genres more cleverly and effectively for the audience (without being cheap or superficial). Truffaut's experiment from the early 60s falls short by two classes. Truffaut's directing and the cast are interesting to me, but if the story doesn't absorb you and the characters are more or less irrelevant to you, you can't consider giving it a four-star rating. The selection of genres also harms the result. Truffaut truly didn't understand thrillers, and he should have avoided them altogether. What ultimately emerged will probably appeal much more to an art-house circle of viewers than to regular fans of genre productions. Overall impression: 60%.

I am not a big expert on modern musicals, and maybe that's why I would prefer the classic film version, but this is still an extremely impressive and highly professionally executed work, in which it is worth highlighting the performances of both boys. The story of the journey toward a dream comes to life on the stage, at the end of which stands a unique artist. It is all also under the backdrop of the social conflict of British miners and their efforts to maintain their social status with the new order imposed by the government of Margaret Thatcher. Overall impression: 85%.

The Christian fundamentalist right in the USA once again came up with a plan on how to strike a deadly blow to sin, and they realized that they should use more modern methods when addressing the young generation. So they paid David Mitchell and he crafted a script on how one's first sexual experience can unleash the worst demons and destroy those who wanted to have some fun and sin a little bit. It's definitely not clever or impressive to me. There are much better films in this genre, so why waste time with this? Overall impression: 25%.

How can I say this politely, Pak? You're pissing me off. For years, I believed that nobody could shake me in terms of cinema, and I could handle even Simandl and his creations without problems at one point, but I simply can't handle you anymore without my tube of medication for high blood pressure. There's so much talent wasted that it just hurts. You are a kitsch artist. Maybe the king of kitsch artists, but that won't defend you in my eyes. The aestheticization of violence already bothered me in Old Boy, and here it's just a continuation of the same. Emotionally, we are completely different. Overall impression: 10% for the acting ensemble. You won't deceive me with the rest. Farewell and make sure to avoid the places where I hang out. The wasted time really hurts.

The same short story that served as the basis for Anderson's film was also used by Czech Director Jan Švankmajer as the foundation for his stylized narrative, and I must admit that his film Lunacy was much more interesting to me in terms of filmmaking. This strange experiment combines the need to adhere to the traditional thriller framework and the romantic motif, including all the usual ingredients typical of Hollywood productions, including audience-pleasing "shocking" twists. On the other hand, it also contains the usual positive aspects of American studio productions, such as grandiosity and a star-studded cast. Brad Anderson is also definitely not an average craftsman. If there are any weaknesses, they can usually be attributed to the script, but it is also not terrible. The final twist was a surprise even for me, and although it did not necessitate watching the film again (meaning it wasn't clever enough to pose a challenge to the audience), it was sufficiently attractive for the average film consumer, along with the physical charms of Kate Beckinsale and the acting of Ben Kingsley and others, I do recommend it. Overall impression: 65%.

A film about human pain, guilt, failure, and the attempt to somehow cope with it all. It is pleasantly and cleverly cast, with Casey Affleck suiting his role as if Lonergan had written it specifically for him. I haven't seen enough of him to confidently say that he normally acts brilliantly, or if it was just a great casting choice. Unfortunately, Manchester by the Sea doesn't score as high with me as I expected because it only works partially. My attention was unilaterally drawn from the beginning to the end by Lee Chandler, while the director wanted to build the film on the relationship and confrontation between the uncle and nephew. However, Patrick as a teenager was not interesting to me, unfortunately. The film worked perfectly until Lee became a mystery to me, and I didn't understand all of the bitterness, emotional instability, and inaccessibility of his personality. The revelation should have come to me in the end. Nevertheless, I understand why there is so much talk about the film and why it is considered worthy of an Oscar nomination. Overall impression: 65%.