gudaulin

In Daniel Craig's Bond, has become fashionable for film fans to criticize the loss of style and almost all the ingredients that made Bond Bond. I have never been a fan of the Bond legend or a die-hard action movie fan, so the loss of some typical elements for this film doesn't seem painful to me. What I do miss is a greater lightheartedness, the typical self-ironic lines, and light-hearted jokes. The pace is brisk and the style corresponds to what viewers could see in the previous 21 Bond films. Director Marc Forster does not offend me with his style, and I appreciate his direction much more than some more famous films in the series. The excessive action prowess doesn't sit well with me either, as the hero can take care of dozens of enemies without blinking an eye, without even getting out of breath, and also the fact that the villains, such as Mathieu Amalric's portrayed character, have such a short lifespan. But that's how the Bond fairy tales go. Overall impression: 60%.

Sylvester Stallone is a special case. He started as an actor in a pornographic film and the professional critique expresses itself about him in the style of "master of monosyllabic sentences" or "master of one expression," but Stallone doesn't mind at all, and neither do his fans. For his work in front of the camera, which I wouldn't call acting, he has received an incredible amount of Golden Raspberries for worst acting performances. He has won it ten times and has been nominated thirty times. Among other things, I think he won one for Rambo 2. He is an honorable holder of the title of Worst Actor of the Century. Even the first Rambo movie is rough in terms of his acting performance, but it was compensated by a relatively decent screenplay that dealt with the post-war syndrome, and several character actors were involved. This Rambo has none of that; it's unnecessary to talk about the screenplay. The acting performances are practically non-existent, and the whole film can be reduced to an endless series of fight scenes in the most fairy-tale-like spirit of action movies. I didn't enjoy this kind of fairy-tale story for adults even when I was fifteen. It lacks even the slightest satire or realism. It's just a celebration of killing. It has relatively decent camera work and editing, so I'll give it one star for that. Overall impression: 15%. This kind of film is interesting more from a sociological point of view. People go to see it for the same reason that viewers once flocked to gladiator matches or why professional boxing or wrestling matches are so popular. It's not worth pondering why such productions have such high ratings and effortlessly defeat Oscar-winning films; it's more proof that any rankings are purely indicative, and one must continuously engage their brain.

From an artistic standpoint, it's just an average affair, a typical TV movie of which there are many, and there's no point in going into detail about the acting or directing. But as a fictionalized documentary of the painful history of the Balkan wars and a reminder of the largest war crime since the end of World War II, it works like a charm. Overall impression: 60%.

Revolutionary Road deals with the same topic as The War of the Roses, which is comedic in tone. It is about the destruction of a marriage mainly caused by the fact that the emancipated wife had greater ambitions than just being a household decoration. The War of the Roses is full of audience-friendly black humor, while Revolutionary Road presents a burdensome chamber drama that can hardly win any sympathy. The story is set in the golden age of American masculinity, framed by the end of World War II and the mid-60s when male social dominance was dismantled under the pressure of women's emancipation, higher education for women, and a cultural transformation characterized by overall liberalization, the rise of beatniks, and the hippie movement. The final blow was dealt by changes in the economy - the oil crisis, rising commodity prices, and competition from third-world countries made it impossible to continue a society composed of families that comfortably managed with only one income. Today, only a very limited sample of society can afford to have a stay-at-home wife. However, it worked perfectly during that happy twenty-year period. Prices concerning incomes allowed the middle class to afford the single breadwinner family model, the economy was growing, and getting a mortgage was possible without worries. Many American retirees still fondly remember that idyllic (and idealized) image. Revolutionary Road shows the dark side of this type of American dream, where the husband pursues a career while the wife goes to the sink to wash dishes and prepare lunch. The chemistry between the main characters is excellent and the story sticks to the main idea without ornamental flourishes like in American Beauty, which I appreciate. Overall impression: 95%.

I am going to write something that is seemingly in sharp contrast to my overall impression expressed by the percentage rating at the end of this review. This film is a testament to the high level of Icelandic cinema and its exceptional position in European cinema considering its size and population. According to the latest census, Iceland has about 313,000 inhabitants, and yet, it is capable of producing more genre films than many countries of medium size. Icelandic filmmakers dedicate themselves to honest genre films, such as crime stories. However, this film would work much better if it were shot in a serious tone as a serious crime film about a group of sailors who wanted to earn extra money by smuggling untaxed alcohol, rather than as a cool-looking crime comedy that nods to Guy Ritchie's style. Icelanders simply do not have suitable types of actors for that, and it does not fit their national temperament and the atmosphere of the raw Icelandic landscape. The Ritchie-style screenplay contains too many motifs and characters that are not properly developed, so although the result is watchable and contains everything that the audience expects from such a production, it falls far short of expectations for great entertainment. It is simply average and my overall impression is 55%.

It is said that you cannot enter the same river twice, but Guy Ritchie tried it for the third time and succeeded once again. Only the audience is somewhat more critical this time because repeating a performance is not enough, as usually, something needs to be added to evoke the same enthusiasm. Snatch also had its flaws, but it was one of the first and didn't have much competition, so for many people, it seemed like a revelation, even though it was clearly low-budget, and yet part of the magic also lay in the fact that it was not a mainstream movie. Ritchie had already directed Snatch as a well-known director and with a much bigger budget, which was evident in the presence of the stars and prominent faces. In RocknRolla, Ritchie unleashes another darkly humorous gangster game filled with betrayals, misunderstandings, and numerous characters and motifs. However, if something fails, it is the not-so-prominent actors in the lead roles, except for the veteran Tom Wilkinson, who is skillfully supported by Mark Strong. The members of the wild gang, who were supposed to stand out and attract the attention and favor of the audience, are somewhat generic and interchangeable. That is surprising because Ritchie could have hired practically anyone. I would also believe in Thandie Newton in many different roles, but definitely not as an accountant. I would rather tend to believe that Amy Winehouse will be abstinent for life or Courtney Love as a nun. Although Karel Roden gets quite a lot of screen time, unfortunately, he acts too restrained for my taste. I missed that energy and craziness from the previous two films, although, for example, the chase between the wild gang and the Russian gangsters on the railroad track undoubtedly had charm. Overall, it's a solid 4 stars, noting that it is an exceptional genre film that, in my eyes, has no competition. Overall impression: 85%.

This film belongs to the category where the less willing you are to think about the logic of events and the thought processes of the characters, the more you will like it. The visual aspects and directorial execution, handling of action scenes, and directing of actors are really on point. The casting worked great, so I have no objections in that regard. On the other hand, the script is one of those where the screenwriter searched for impressive twists for so long, that he completely lost himself in the intricacies of the spy service and its adversaries. Secrets of State thematically slightly resembles Besson's La Femme Nikita, where a girl becomes a war machine, and the former college student, who had a completely different idea of life, suddenly becomes a person without a past and living multiple lives at once. By the way, I liked Vahina Giocante more than Anne Parillaud in the past. Overall impression: 60%.

With all due respect to the crew, I very much prefer The Orphanage, but even though Ortiz's film does not reach the quality of the best Spanish horrors, it is still a decent above-average within the genre and is evidence that Spanish cinema currently sets the trend in this genre - similarly, as one could have said about Japan a decade ago. What diminishes the impression is the far-fetched motive of the "animal" girl and the fact that the creators reveal their cards too early for my taste. When they remain in the realm of mysterious tension from deep forests, solitude, and hints of movement in the undergrowth, it works perfectly. The cinematography and the performances, along with the dark music, can be appreciated for creating a functional atmosphere. It's a bit tacky because the flying clouds are cliché and are used almost everywhere nowadays. Otherwise, I appreciate that in this case, the screenwriter tried to avoid cheap supernatural crutches. Overall impression: 65%.

After the calculated and overrated Slumdog Millionaire, Sita Sings the Blues brought me great joy and rehabilitated the world of Indian culture in my eyes. We are used to high-quality animation using various techniques, but besides several animation styles, Sita Sings the Blues features five artistic techniques, precision in execution, a humorous perspective, and an imaginative confrontation with the Western world. On one hand, Sita sings jazz songs from the 1920s in one storyline, and on the other hand, through a parallel story of an American married couple in the present, the director shows us that women have not had it easy with men in the past and do not have it easy today. It may be a small satisfaction for them that it works perfectly the other way around as well. The film itself tells the story of Sita's wife and her husband Rama simply, based on the classic Indian literature "Ramayana." One can also appreciate the exotic visual concept based on Indian cultural traditions. Sita Sings the Blues is imaginative, colorful, and simply has a swing. Overall impression: 95%.

An interesting psychedelic film about a man who, after being hit by a meteorite, discovers that he has shifted from his physical essence and must adapt to a life where all objects are located at a distance of 91 cm. It's a bizarre work with black humor and a bitter realization that the main character is facing an emerging nerve disorder. Overall impression: 80%.