gudaulin

I am going to be much soberer and in opposition to film fans on FilmBooster, who ranked Seven in the top ten, I have to say that in my opinion, the film has only one, but very significant plus in the form of David Fincher's atmospheric direction. Just like elsewhere in his work, he works magic with the camera, carefully creates scenes, plays with sound and imagery, and everything is subordinated to maximum effect and audience experience. Unfortunately, at the expense of logic, it is simply straightforward. Instead of being a crime thriller, it leans more toward the horror genre, specifically foreshadowing the later successful horror series Saw. The screenplay is overly complicated, just like in similarly tuned films with a brilliant manipulator, such as Primal Fear, and this simply would not work in reality. It is interesting to observe several film details where Fincher subordinates everything to the atmosphere. For example, wherever the characters enter, it must be dimmed and for God's sake, no one should press the light switch. They use flashlights or the room is sparsely illuminated by red flashes, to emphasize the gloominess of the environment and its mystery. The director chooses the most repulsive environments, neglected and dirty alleys on the outskirts, and old buildings with peeling facades, and plays even more with the interiors. These are usually much more dirty and devastated than would be possible in reality. The camera revels in decay and mold, which would have already alerted the surrounding tenants to some irregularities. The police officers enter an apartment with their guns raised and proceed to the last room, where they only then lift the cover off the victim, suddenly clutching their noses. Again, Fincher subordinates everything to the element of surprise. It is good to compare the dynamically shot chase scene in an apartment building with the chase scene on the roofs and in the apartments of an Arab quarter in The Bourne Supremacy. While the latter fits organically into the story, here the culprit should be able to run down the stairs and disappear through the main exit, but that would, of course, be artistically unattractive, so Fincher lets his villain and the pursuer run through parts of the house that probably no one has yet built and will never build because it would be an unapprovable architectural masterpiece. There are many similar absurdities, but the power of Fincher's unmistakable directorial style is so pronounced that it reliably conceals them in the eyes of the majority of viewers. Even I have to appreciate the atmospheric nature of the scene where Brad Pitt has a gun to his head and expects a shot. The brutality of the individual crimes naturally also captures the audience's interest, but my impression is lowered by the philosophical framework of the drama, with which I do not identify in the least. While another Fincher film, Fight Club, seemed like a great portrayal of the phenomenon of rebellion, anarchy, and consumerism in a modern metropolis, here the nihilism and depression seem inappropriate to me. Overall impression: 60%.

Mike Hodges' film is interesting. An atypically shot and realistic gangster film, with the support of the star Michael Caine, should have the potential to become a cult film, thanks to its bloody revenge story. However, it is emotionally cold and distant in its execution, reminiscent of Michael Haneke's later work, and that may be why some people use the term "boring" in their reviews. At the same time, I am somewhat bothered by unfinished or improbable details, such as the gun our anti-hero takes to the busy city to carry out his revenge. Parading around with it in broad daylight on busy streets is not exactly logical, although you could say it's effective. An American remake was made based on the motifs of this classic British film, with Sylvester Stallone in the lead role, but it didn't come close to the qualities of its original for understandable reasons. Today's fans of popcorn movies may be put off by the somewhat unusual editing and longer scenes, but for me, it gains in attractiveness as a film that stands out from the crowd. Overall impression: 65%.

This film is somewhat superficial, with cheap effects, and the selection of information and processing is tendentious. It may be sufficient for an average viewer, but it definitely won't enrich history enthusiasts. Overall impression: 50%.

Please do not confuse this version of The Professionals with the famous British action series. This is a classic western, set on the Mexican border during the end of the Mexican Revolution, where a wealthy financier sends a group of four adventurers to rescue his wife from the clutches of kidnappers. The fact that something is different is already signaled by the information about the film's content, so I wasn't surprised by the "big" surprise and I have a fairly indifferent relationship with the western genre; I tolerate its clichés much worse than, for example, gangster films or other lighter genres. This film really does have all of the genre shortcomings, which fans of westerns will appreciate, but I just shrug my shoulders at them. And so the four gunmen fearlessly eliminate dozens of their enemies and practically massacre the entire rebel unit to save the Mexican federal army some work. The actors, who exude authority and charisma, just barely earn this film three stars. They were simply Actors with a capital A, not bodybuilders, boxers, or wrestlers, who would go on to dominate the action genre twenty years later. The film is also harmed by the screenplay that culminates in a finale that is expected, but truly idiotic in the context of the previous massacres, making the previous human casualties completely unnecessary. Overall impression: 50%.

I do not share the general enthusiasm for this feature film, even though it is undoubtedly original, but it is also a film that would stand out much more as a series of short films. Such a series apparently exists and I gladly give it my attention once I get a chance to see it. A Town Called Panic is built on the sheer craziness of its characters and plot, where one wonders what the screenwriter and artists were thinking before creating something like this. But as I mentioned before, a feature film needs something more than just disrespect for established rules and great imagination. Overall impression: 55%.

One has to admit that director Paul McGuigan is a master of his craft and has also gathered a decent amount of experience, so he currently belongs to the significantly better part of what British cinema has to offer. Paradoxically, I would have liked his film more as a classic straightforward gangster story about how things work and how new generations alternate within the gang, rather than as a psychological study of a deviant person, envy, and violence in general. The film portrays gangsters as people whose moral standards are shifted compared to the general population. However, McGuigan doesn't handle this psychological aspect very well, so the film sometimes teeters on the edge and the script, along with the motivations and actions of the individual characters, somewhat drags on. My weak three-star rating is ultimately saved by the cast, led by experienced actors Malcolm McDowell and Paul Bettany. Moreover, the depicted violence at times very much stands on the edge and can evoke disgust in many viewers. Overall impression: 50%.

Director Mira Nair draws on her ability to stand somewhere between Indian culture represented by Bollywood and traditional filmmaking represented by Hollywood in her work. She is able to effectively combine both styles and sell exoticism cultivated by Western moderation and reality. I know her film Monsoon Wedding, which I liked a little more precisely because of its exotic frame of a traditional Indian wedding, but The Namesake is also a solid film that somewhat suffers from the effort to map the lives of two generations. Two hours is a little too short for that, so the film sometimes feels rushed and the characters a bit like figurines. In addition, it lacks a stronger plot line, and the psychological conflicts are diluted over time and by the director's reluctance to engage in a greater emotional clash. Overall impression: 60%.

I have often seen comparisons with the movie Crash, but I find that misleading because Crossing Over has a different topic and treatment, and in my opinion, it is different even in terms of quality. While Crash tried to depict the issue of a multicultural society, i.e., the coexistence of different cultures and races, Crossing Over focuses on the theme of a wealthy country, into which people from various reasons try to immigrate with the desire to fulfill their work ambitions, support their families, or experience adventure. There are also many pests involved, such as smugglers, lawyers, corrupt officials, and a large number of foreign police officers. Although it is an interesting subject with high potential, the execution is learnedly referred to as midcult, i.e., a serious topic is presented in a way that can be understood by as many people as possible, and that corresponds to the polarization of characters into noble ones + victims and the evil ones, who should be punished. It also seemed too patriotic to me, the typical American patriotism with an enthusiastic view of the American flag, where immigrants arriving from around the world vow their loyalty to the new American homeland. The film is solidly cast, played, and directed, but the script is too "Hollywood" for me. Overall impression: 65%.

Once in the 80s, during a high school literature class, I grounded my teacher with the statement that the cursed poets were a bunch of terribly ill-mannered people who drank, snorted cocaine, were promiscuous, and if they didn't dedicate themselves to worldly pleasures, they could accomplish much more. Not to mention that if I allowed myself just a percentage of what representatives of a graduation question did, I would be expelled from school without hesitation. As a teenager, I simply leaned toward bourgeois life, which prioritized hard work over drinking and drug excesses. No one could convince me later that any artistic work could not be created without artificial stimulants. Alcohol and drug influences are a big obstacle during the process of artistic creation. Jim Morrison was undoubtedly a talented poet, lyricist, and musician, but also - and perhaps above all - an emotionally and ideologically unstable poser who never managed to grow up, a weakling, an alcoholic, and a junkie. I definitely would not want to share a household with him, and there is spiritual harmony to be spoken of. His premature death is not the fault of the FBI or misfortune but exclusively his nature and uncontrolled behavior. Therefore, I cannot identify in any way with the main character, who I find unsympathetic, and I also do not support the music of The Doors. However, that's the problem with a music film...Additionally, in its second half, the film focuses too much - although quite understandably, because it's the basis of this band's legend - on scandalous performances and Morrison's decadent lifestyle. However, dozens of minutes of parties and excesses on stage become a boring stereotype during the long runtime...Morrison is simply an icon of pop culture that, even after so many years, evokes illusions of absolute freedom during a certain age of adolescence, and in small-minded people, feelings of envy towards a man who, unlike them, was not afraid to overcome the barriers of social conventions and did not burden himself with hypocritical pretenses of false emotions and gestures. If there is something worth attention in Stone's film besides the traditionally high-quality direction, this time in "psychedelic" style, it is the performance of Val Kilmer in the lead role. Although I don't particularly like him, this time I take my hat off to him, as he practically transformed into the character. Overall impression: 55%.

A mysteriously tuned comedy, which can be loosely described as a combination of Anglo-Saxon black humor and an American family comedy about the search for one's own identity and their place in life. The main character desires a career as a painter but hasn't succeeded yet and his life is determined by his parents, who have directed him toward a career as a lawyer, following in his father's footsteps. However, one day a mysterious stranger appears, who can grant his wish, and while others have little imagination or are too consumer-oriented, Neil Oliver wishes to find the right life path. Thus follows a journey along mysterious highway No. 60 and visits to cities that are not known on current maps and which caricature some negative traits of contemporary American society. The protagonist passes through a city where synthetic drugs are legalized and freely distributed to everyone who wants them, only to later exploit the cheap labor of the addicts. In another city, lawyers reign, fabricating obscure accusations against visitors, to drain them in long-drawn Kafkaesque processes, which has a parallel in the complex American legal system and the effort to extract the maximum profit from various absurd accusations. It is occasionally truly funny, but the potential is far from being fully utilized because it treads on daring ideas within mainstream tracks and the protagonist seems to have stepped out of a teenage comedy, where he plays the handsome kid at the top of the class. Overall impression: 65%.