gudaulin

I have only seen the first two seasons, then I got a bit tired of this format. The series was preceded by a generous advertising campaign that set the bar of expectations very high. 24 hours is a regular commercial product, its advantage being dynamic editing and a screenplay that revels in dramatic twists, as well as the cast led by Kiefer Sutherland. On the other hand, the series is accompanied by a number of scripting flaws, such as the nonsensical and overcomplicated motif of a destroyed airplane in the first season. There are also plenty of genre clichés from action movies and the indestructibility of the main hero. If they have Jack Bauer, then I don't understand why Americans have difficulties in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. The second season clearly shows the superfluity of the plotline with Bauer's daughter, and more similar criticisms could be found upon closer examination. Nevertheless, the dynamic plot and the twists and turns of the script place the series slightly above average. Overall impression: 60%.

Monty Brogan had his whole life ahead of him, offering him plenty of tempting opportunities. Unfortunately, he chose the fastest shortcut to making money and transitioned from a promising student to a school marijuana dealer. The profession remained, only he smoothly transitioned from light drugs to the hard ones. But as they say, what goes around comes around, and one day, the police are invited into his apartment. Explaining a kilo of heroin and a generous amount of cash was quite difficult. So difficult, in fact, that you leave the court with the perspective of 7 years behind bars in an environment far from the standards you were accustomed to. Spike Lee decided to film the farewell of his hero to freedom, and it must have truly pained him because he did his utmost to humanize him and gain the sympathy of the audience. The film contains a lot, to the point of the ruined existences of Brogan's customers, their broken families, undermined health, suicides, overdoses, AIDS, and much more associated with drug users. Many people in the world have come to their misfortune blindly, but that can't be said about Monty. Where Lee expects sympathy from me, I shrug my shoulders and say: Your Monty only reaped what he sowed. Moreover, Spike Lee looks like someone who has been silent for too long and suddenly desires to get a lot of things out of himself, things that would be cool, but in a different genre, a different film, and with different main characters. The film simply slips through his fingers. Spike does have a way with the camera, relying on top-notch actors, and some scenes have an atmospheric look, but considering the above, I can't give it more than 3 stars - and he should be glad I'm not dissecting the final cheesy sentimental outpouring of the main character's father, which would not fare well on the chart of film embarrassments. Overall impression: 55%.

Danny Boyle has gained a following with his Shallow Grave and confirmed his reputation as a talented filmmaker with the cult classic Trainspotting. Therefore, something grand was expected of him and unfortunately, it's not as amazing as one would hope, although from my perspective, it's still enough for a 4-star rating. It's a film that approaches its subject matter too timidly and indecisively. The pacing of the film fluctuates, the screenplay is uncertain, sometimes talkative, and above all, it has an awkwardly happy ending. Within its genre, it's still above average, but I simply expected more from the director of Trainspotting. Overall impression: 70%.

The film has a nice visual aspect, but the rest is sterile or conceptually problematic. I once invested an incredible 50 bucks in Miller's comic book, influenced by the claim that it is one of the most significant works of comic creation. There is no doubt that it was the worst investment I have ever made in the world of books. Ideologically, it felt like a guide for a young fascist through the world of life values, not to mention the lack of historical credibility, only the visual concept stood out... Overall impression: 40%.

Jiří Sequens claimed in the 90s that the original concept of the series was completely different, much more civil, and fulfilling the characteristics of the crime genre. However, the State Security apparatus was involved in the preparation and production of the series to such an extent that it completely distorted the intentions of the production team. Whatever the case may be, the result was a project that has a much more political and propagandistic dimension than a detective, or rather a criminalistic dimension. Practically all the episodes, without exception, distort real historical processes to correspond to the defense of the then-state establishment and ruling ideology. Some do it more skillfully, some less, but they are all deceitful. Over time, only the music by Zdeněk Liška and the participation of a large number of great actors can be appreciated, even though often with gritted teeth. From ordinary projects affected by the times, one could usually withdraw, but it was impossible to reject a project as popular as this one. Overall impression: 20%.

I would like to borrow my opening words from elsewhere: "Overwrought and poorly told phantasmagoria"... because they succinctly and accurately characterize what you can expect from the series. According to Alex de la Iglesia, he worked on the series for 6 years, reserved only a maximum of one week for the screenplay based on the result, and it took him the longest time to convince the producers to invest finances and studio support in such garbage. Honestly, I am amazed that the series was created under the patronage of HBO, which usually sets the bar for quality high. I like storytelling and enjoy it, but Alex is a terrible storyteller. It cannot be claimed that the problem lies in the subject itself, it is rather about its execution, about Alex's superficial approach to the material. He wastefully indulges in ideas only to thwart their potential. The mystery genre relies on emotions much more than on rationality, but that does not mean that no laws should apply to it, and that the behavior of the characters will not be guided by any logic. I am surprised by the decent rating on FilmBooster because Alex's lack of restraint and inconsistency moves the genre from horror or fantasy to grotesque in many places... but to each their own. I will not in the least accommodate the carelessly shot mishmash with poor effects and a stupid screenplay, there are others for that. Overall impression: 10%.

The comic book of the same name became a literary event of the year in its genre, not thanks to its average script that relies on a single clever idea, but thanks to the blurred original artwork of Ben Templesmith, which elevated the work to art. His graphic style is economical, and surrealistic, relying on readers' imagination and focusing on striking, unpleasant details that evoke a sense of hopelessness and cruelty. I have the comic book at home, and it is one of my favorites. I was curious about how its film adaptation would turn out, especially since the book can be read almost like a film script and has great film potential. Thus, my disappointment was even greater when I saw the result. True, a certain visual resemblance can be traced between the film vampires and the ones from the comics, as well as the original idea and basic story being adopted. However, while the comic monsters exude sinister majesty and demonic characteristics, the film ones resemble sick creatures infected with Ebola and rabies at the same time. The villains from the comic can be brutal murderers in one second, only to transform into polished companions in the next moment, who perversely play with their next victim with an elegant smile on their faces. The film versions emit only inhuman screams and evoke pity. Increasing tension, fear of the unknown, and isolation emanate from each comic panel, later followed by the brutality of a brutal massacre and the hopelessness of the survivors. Comics can advance the plot and evoke a lot of emotions with just one full-page image of a snowstorm - it is impossible not to think of the long shots of a snowy landscape in Carpenter's cult classic The Thing, which, along with a simple musical motif, managed to create unpleasant tension. The film lacks what made the comic famous - atmosphere. Atmosphere is is what is originality in a film, as well as accurate work with sound, cleverly shot scenes, and visually impressive camera shots. Because David Slade lacks aesthetic sensitivity and especially a sense of composition, he tries to create an impression only with techniques typical of music videos - that is, masks, fast cuts, and frantic camera movements. This may be enough for those who grew up with music videos and video games, but probably not for connoisseurs familiar with the film classics. I don't mind that Slade's film lacks artistic depth. That happens very rarely, and most viewers don't expect it or need it to be satisfied. What bothers me is that 30 Days of Night has stupid, unimpressive filmmaking that can satisfy only fans of B-movie horror and splatterpunk in this form. I saw the film only on a poor pirate copy (thank God, because I would have regretted spending money on such a thing in the movie theater for a long time), but even so, it was clear that not a single interesting and memorable scene appeared in it. I don't need to turn to film legends, for example, in the unambitious and purely television "Kingesque" film The Night Flier, I can recall five of them... In this context, the film Alien is worth mentioning. Before it, dozens, if not hundreds, of bad films about bloodthirsty creatures from space were made, which damaged the genre and majorly discredited this prop. Then one clever director came along, along with one original artist, and they proved that there are no "noble" and "debased" genres, only good and bad movies. Alien became a film event, but I highly doubt that 30 Days of Night can claim the same. Overall impression: 35%.

Total pleasant, but undemanding musical with several nice songs, where one of the stars is provided by the cast, led by charismatic Jaroslava Schallerova. This film today works both as a matter for the memoires, and as a preserved portrayal of certain stars. In one of the roles of mathematically untouched girls, for example, the very young Lenka Flipova appeared and she was a very nice sight... Overall impression 55%.

A modern form and classic content with a lot of what we call genre clichés. I hesitated for a long time about how to review the film because on one hand, it is heavily burdened by genre myths and the logic of the actions of individual characters somewhat lags behind, and overall it is far from the down-to-earth historical reality. On the other hand, this is a genre that has always been a fairy tale for grown-ups and adults in its vast majority, and it is simply an escapist form of entertainment. If we consider it that way, then James Mangold and the present actors certainly did not disgrace themselves. The individual opponents have charisma and the characters are convincingly portrayed. Moreover, the dialogues, when I disregard that logic, also have depth and can be described as a kind of psychological drama. I would give it three stars because, considering what I saw, it deserved more comedic relief, and a couple of times the corners of my mouth twitched due to the opponents' illogical behavior, but I will probably shock and outrage most genre fans when I declare that I ultimately liked this film more than The Magnificent Seven. Overall impression: 75%.

The majority of the runtime maintains a reliable four-star level and ranks significantly higher than what American studios produced in the genre in the 1950s. It plays with a similar motif as the famous film High Noon. By coincidence, the responsibility for resolving the crisis situation falls on the lonely hero, who overcomes his fear at the decisive moment and becomes a moral authority. The film uses typical western characters but gives them a deeper psychological dimension compared to the customs of the time. In particular, the leader of the gang is not a typical western villain with a black soul and fast guns. He is a player, manipulator, tempter, and negotiator, but also the owner of a unique and solid value system. The film usually avoids using genre stereotypes, is sparing with action scenes, and focuses on the psychological conflicts between the characters and their dialogue. Unfortunately, in the last fifteen minutes, the western myth comes to life in full force, and suddenly we have a typical 1950s western with an invincible hero and a naive plot. The triumph of justice should have taken a different form, and the final scene of the transition from the hotel to the train is a typical example of the screenwriter bending logic in favor of their goal. In my eyes, the film deserves one star less for this, but a genre fan can easily add another star. Overall impression: 65%.