gudaulin

I very rarely understand the humor of American mainstream comedies. The rating of 76% on FilmBooster was tempting to me, as well as the relatively positive comments. The first minutes of the film were indeed filled with several decent jokes, and the idea of ​​creating a typical American family was crazy but interesting, and the presence of Jennifer Aniston undoubtedly helped the film. The forty-four-year-old actress looked noticeably younger and she has a figure that many teenagers would envy. Although she doesn't showcase exceptional acting skills, she undeniably possesses a certain charm. One quickly understands why she has managed to create a large fan club. However, it soon becomes apparent that the humor is rather clumsy and increasingly cheap. Yet, for a while, it manages to stay within the boundaries that avoid crossing the line of awkwardness. But that changes in the second half, and moreover, the chemistry between the family members is terrible. The screenwriter lacked the courage to utilize what was directly available - to parody and turn upside down the American middle-class family values ​​and the sweet sentiment of family films. All the potential gradually goes to waste, and in the end, it becomes an easily forgettable mess that relies on silly sexual innuendos and swollen testicles. It's a shame because this film could have been better. Overall impression: 40%.

The title of the film may evoke an adventure spectacle, but it would have worked much better if it had focused on the relationship between two close friends, disrupted by the entrance of a beautiful woman, and their long-tested friendship was put to an unexpected test. The story about a wreck at the bottom of the ocean and a clash with a gang of foreign mercenaries is artificially attached to the plot, and the crucial meeting on a romantic island is poorly directed. Joanna Shimkus in the role of a fateful woman doesn't showcase much acting skill, as she is a typical case of a model who sold her charms in her youth to then marry advantageously and disappear from the world of cinema. What works completely, however, is the presence of two giants of French cinema, Ventura and Delon. Overall impression: 60%.

This is an unpleasant film. I wouldn't even hesitate to use the controversial epithet "repulsive" in some moments. It's an ideologically defined film, where I hesitate to use the label leftist, as it would be much more accurate to call it left-wing. Those who consider the conflict between the sensation-seeking tabloid and the falsely accused individual, who tries to protect their privacy, as the central theme of the film are mistaken. The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum is not a timeless film but rather is closely connected to specific events and processes taking place in West Germany in the first half of the 1970s. During the 1960s, the influence of the radical left grew significantly at German universities and the cultural environment, while the rest of the population enjoyed the fruits of the German economic miracle. The first wave of RAF attacks shocked and disgusted Germany. The bourgeois press (logically) criticized not only the terrorists but also scrutinized their ideological foundations and social background. The radical left found itself isolated and faced increasing pressure from the conservative majority. The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum is one of the products of the frustration experienced by leftists at that time. I think that if Ulrike Meinhof were alive, she would be thrilled with the film and would willingly agree with the assessment given by the creators to the German authorities and media. The film works with black and white, strongly polarized characters. Its zealous criticism of what it considers German reality makes it strongly tendentious, which significantly diminishes the film's strength today. Holders of state power are ruthless, employing any methods without hesitation, and the media are manipulative and willingly inform the police - just like "ordinary" citizens who remain ideologically anchored in their brown past. It is evident from every shot how much the filmmakers did not identify with the environment that surrounded them, and how much they wanted to depict the society of that time as hysterical, herd-like, and manipulative. Personally, I find the film techniques used by the directorial duo rather manipulative today. There are questions that can be asked, which obviously did not interest the creators. The protagonist of the film is at best naive and irresponsible, and in the worst case, Katharina Blum can be thought of as a member of a terrorist network because such an interpretation is also possible. However, the concept of honor according to Margarethe von Trotta and Volker Schlöndorff suspiciously resembles how it is perceived by Italian mafiosi or members of Caucasian clans. Overall impression: 40%.

I adhere to the principle that if I don't have high expectations I will be pleasantly surprised from time to time. The new Blade Runner did not disappoint me, although I could express a few critical reservations. But overall, besides Nolan's Dunkirk, this was my biggest movie theater experience this year. It is more than a worthy continuation of Scott's film, or rather its modified version from 1992. It continues not only in terms of the plot but also in terms of atmosphere and style. The characters are all 30 years older and it clearly did not benefit any of them. Deckard has aged, the environmental crisis has deepened, social inequalities are more extreme, and fear and tension have increased everywhere. There are more replicants and they represent a greater challenge than ever before. Blade Runner 2049 depicts a world that has not yet exploded, but the fuse is already burning and the flame inexorably approaches the explosive. Denis Villeneuve creates impressive and depressive images of a world where humanity cannot handle itself, let alone coexist with artificial intelligence. The strength of his film lies in the direction and visuals, while the screenplay is noticeably weaker. However, a similar criticism can also be applied to Scott's film, which is stronger in building atmosphere and raising ethical questions than in the credibility of the constructed world. Blade Runner 2049 can be criticized for many things, from the uninteresting female antagonist who certainly does not match the replicant Roy Batty from the first film to the strange character of the CEO of the most powerful corporation, Niander Wallace, who resembles a leading figure of a religious sect, and whose appearance is probably supposed to refer to biblical motifs of the Creator God. Yet among current blockbusters, the film stands out. I agree with the criticism directed at the excessive readability, literalness, and genericness, but I would also compare this film to Prometheus, which is several levels worse in the aforementioned aspects, moreover, it has poor editing, the most basic narrative techniques fail in it, and it uses the cheapest symbolism. Therefore, I would be cautious with the hate and I would attribute some disappointments to unrealistic expectations and, last but not least, to the fact that Blade Runner betrays its commercial attractiveness. A slow three-hour action film built on long shots simply doesn't appeal to everyone. If you can't resist the lure of the new Blade Runner, I highly recommend watching it on the big screen because it loses a lot of its visual impact on the small screen. Gosling in the lead role may disgust some people with his limited acting range, but let's not forget that he plays an android, so we can forgive him for that. I enjoyed Blade Runner 2049 - not as a masterpiece of art that should be some fundamental reflection of our technological possibilities and fear of the near future, but as a magnificent visual blockbuster that is not as mindless as the majority of the others. Overall impression: 90%.

With this film, Martin Scorsese entered the territory where Terry Gilliam feels at home - the world in which we find characters deviating from the norm, confronting peculiar personalities, and where a strange atmosphere characterizes the film. Throughout, I had a feeling of craziness, a lingering drug trip, and the impression that one of the sources of inspiration was Timothy Lear's legacy. As much as I like Martin's work, I'm not quite sure about this road movie across the nocturnal streets of New York with a long burnt-out guy whose veins flow with a mixture of alcohol and amphetamines instead of blood. It's too over-stylized, too cool, and has too many elements that would fit into a different genre for me to take the film seriously as a drama. Every time it seems like the story begins to descend beneath the surface of things, another trip comes along. And an entertaining pop culture ride, it fails due to the stereotypes and pervasive depression. Moreover, I am unable to identify with the main character in any way. If he doesn't enjoy his job, why doesn't he simply quit and back out? Overall impression: 45%.

Although Sidney Poitier has charisma to spare, he is a handsome guy to look at, and his humanistic ideals radiate from him, but I would strongly warn students of education against attempting to view the teaching profession through the lens of a film protagonist. The story of how a teacher can, through his passion, dramatically reverse the negative atmosphere in the classroom within a few weeks and turn around troublesome students at the most difficult age, who have been influenced by everything from a lack of education at home to the absence of positive role models, into motivated students ready to enter life, is nice to watch, but it has nothing to do with real life. The film is so sentimental, moralizing, and unbelievably naive, that it sometimes borders on parody. In my opinion, the significance of the film lies elsewhere. At the time of its production, it was not yet common to perceive black people as anything other than members of the working class. Poitier, in the role of an unmistakable, strong-willed, university-educated intellectual, helped to break down stereotypes and emancipate the African-American community and black immigrants in Europe. The high rating on FilmBooster, in my opinion, is influenced by nostalgia and should be taken with some reservation. Overall impression: 45%.

The formats of successful foreign shows are commonly copied in the Czech Republic, usually with problematic results. I know only one case where the Czech version is more interesting than its original. The American show Wife Swap has (paradoxically) higher ratings on FilmBooster, but it is much more superficial than its Czech clone. The ethnically, culturally, and religiously complex structure of American society seemingly allows for an interesting exploration of the coexistence of people of different races, classes, and religious affiliations, but in practice, it is nothing more than finding the biggest oddballs and pitting them against each other. The camera only focuses on conflict situations, and the radical editing allows for nothing more than the cheapest exploitation of emotions. The Czech version is more refined, and longer, introduces the participants' background, and tends to tell human stories. Certainly, it is still voyeurism, but in addition to that, the first seasons have an undeniable sociological dimension, and, above all, for women, the glimpse into other people's kitchens has a certain therapeutic value - they see that household operations are complex elsewhere as well, and many families are far from perfect. The show may evoke categorical moral judgments from commenters, but the bottom of reality TV must be sought elsewhere (I include Big Brother and its spin-offs among them). In fact, Wife Swap is one of the most interesting things that reality shows have offered in the Czech Republic. Later seasons, in an attempt to maintain viewership, offered progressively more extreme characters with greater potential for conflict, gradually approaching the American starting point. Overall impression: 40%.

I do not deny the entertainment value of the film; in fact, it even has a spicy taste for me. I knew Mrs. Volfová from the time she led the Social Democratic Women when she used different vocabulary and stood for different values. A closer look suggests many unflattering things about the inability to communicate and maintain cohesion on the radically right-wing side of the political scene. However, this is only a secondary and probably unintended effect. Zuzana Piussi could perhaps be praised for how she managed to make both interviewed groups open up, but let's be honest, she didn't have to try very hard. They were eager to show off their arsenal of ideas. The film lacks scale and any deeper analytical perspective on the issue. Yes, activists are often naive idealists, but their influence and numbers are negligible; on the other hand, the views of the second group have become mainstream in the Czech Republic, with far-reaching influence on the political scene and real decisions and functioning of public administration. In a country with a tiny, at most 20,000-member Muslim minority, living dispersedly, highly educated, and well-integrated, in a country with a long-standing conservative, very cautious asylum policy and refugee camps empty, it is rather interesting how incredibly quickly hysteria has escalated and influenced the social climate and the media. A documentary on this topic would be much more useful, because the more we chase after phantoms, the less energy we will have left to solve real problems. Overall impression: 55%.

If you like generously made costume romantic spectacles, there is a very decent chance that you will like Victoria. The craftsmanship is undoubtedly of high quality. The problem is that from the beginning, I saw Victoria heading toward being a penny-dreadful, and I really didn't need that, so I gave up watching it soon. If you are looking for something more, a deeper immersion into the Victorian era, non-trivial dramas, and unconventional processing, you simply have to turn elsewhere. Overall impression: 45%.

This documentary series was created under the National Geographic brand. The famous brand evokes a sense of seriousness and trust, but from the first shots, it is clear that the decisive criterion in this production was viewership. Drugs, Inc. expects to be aired on commercial television screens. This series is effective, but it's also superficial documentary filmmaking with a touch of sensation. You may or may not believe that the man with the scarf over his face is a significant drug dealer. The openness with which characters from the criminal underworld speak about their business, knowing that they can receive lengthy sentences for their actions, is definitely remarkable. Overall impression: 40%.