gudaulin

According to a certain scientist, unsuccessful psychopaths fill prisons, while successful ones become bosses of multinational companies, industrial conglomerates, and respectable institutions. Lou is somewhere between these worlds. Without a formal education, but with high determination and an absolute absence of moral restraints and emotions. In the beginning, he is introduced as an absolute loser, but soon seizes an opportunity and starts his own business in the sale of videos, which journalists with ethical restraints cannot stomach. I cannot help but compare it to Fincher's successful drama Gone Girl, which, despite the director's undeniable craftsmanship, felt somewhat artificial to me, especially from an area where the topic has already been extensively explored in the past. I didn't believe in the story in Gone Girl, while Nightcrawler has an unpleasantly realistic undercurrent, and I never doubted for a moment that people like Lou are among us, waiting for their chance. Jake Gyllenhaal is a reliable actor and delivers exactly what his character requires. The direction is brisk and the camera works wonders. I did not regret my visit to the movie theater in the slightest. Perhaps only the script could have been a bit more restrained, as it is noticeable that Dan Gilroy wanted to depict his anti-hero in the most repulsive light possible, and the tools he uses for that purpose are somewhat direct. On the other hand, similar films often tend to partially sympathize with such a character, which fortunately does not apply in this case. Overall impression: 90%.

From a director like Costa-Gavras, I expect more than from a run-of-the-mill filmmaker, and for a film for which I would be willing to give a weaker 4 stars if it were directed by someone else, I will only give Costa-Gavras 3. Above all else, his Amen. reminds me of another drama by a famous director, namely Katyn by Andrzej Wajda. It is an exceptionally powerful work, an attempt to deliver the best possible result, but in the end, something is lacking. Especially in the case of Costa-Gavras' drama, there is too much talking in some parts, and the film flows too slowly in others. And in some cases, there are not enough charismatic actors appearing in the film. In short, the result is just an average drama that is elevated by the theme. From a historical perspective, it is certainly interesting to look at the involvement of the Catholic Church during World War II, in which it had its bright moments but also very dark ones. The genocide of the Jews could not have been prevented, but many things could have been said more boldly, and above all, the papal seat has had blood on its hands since the 1930s, paving the way for the Nazis to power by maneuvering the Catholic Center as a political pawn in cooperation with the NSDAP... Overall impression: 65%.

In a number of comments, surprise, or rather criticism, appears about the final scene which supposedly changes the meaning of the entire film and turns a psychological drama into red propaganda in the last minutes. Unfortunately, these viewers either failed to understand the social context that Tavernier is attempting to convey or have deficiencies in their knowledge of French history. The film actually has a clear opinion from the beginning and Tavernier doesn't aim for psychological drama as much as socio-critical drama, using the case of an exposed serial killer to criticize the social conditions and take a stance against the hypocrisy and double standards of the so-called upper classes. From the beginning to the end, a left-wing perspective is clearly felt, discussing, for example, the so-called Dreyfus affair, which was one of the most fundamental clashes between the republican and internationalist left and elitist nationalist right, and which had a clear anti-Semitic nature. The film also clearly exhibits an anti-clerical tone, with a number of scenes that expose the church. From today's perspective, it is necessary to highlight above all the outstanding performance of Michel Galabru, who portrayed the mentally disturbed killer with incredible virtuosity. Philippe Noiret as a professional opportunist and manipulator was also good, but Galabru surpassed him by several levels this time. By the way, I also disliked the mentioned scene at the end, but only because it was unnecessarily straightforward. The same could have been conveyed through some type of dialogue between the film characters. However, I won't spoil the rating of this excellent two-hour film because of a two-minute slip-up. Overall impression: 90%.

An interesting film idea, which unfortunately wasn't transformed into an intelligent and functional point. The indecisiveness of the male partner grows into a state where his partner transforms into a multitude of different women and thus András fulfills the dream of many men to have a full harem. Despite the fact that the film story really doesn't have any strong culmination, this Hungarian piece didn't bother me in any way and more or less worked as a one-time experience. Overall impression: 50%.

Almodóvar has already received 4 stars from me in the past, and it would be interesting to compare these titles with the film All About My Mother, during which I started to have enough of Almodóvar and his film style. Filmmaking is undoubtedly in his blood, but what can you do when his film contains a lot of melodramatic twists, like from a cheap Latin American soap opera? It is theatrical, and the characters and their actions are as if from another planet. I am not such a puritan that I mind transvestites, homosexuals, and prostitutes, but other characters in Almodóvar's world hardly ever get in. Moreover, how he builds their relationships is very forced. Two women who have never seen each other before share very intimate and crucial information at their first meeting, which a person would probably prefer to keep secret and only confide in a very close and trustworthy person. I can't help it, but as cultured as Almodóvar is in revealing his sexual desires compared to, let's say, Pasolini, his desires and his entire world exhaust me, so I'm done with it. Overall impression: 45%.

There are films that keep their genre a secret for a long time, whereas Kouf's film reveals everything with just its title. It is a crime comedy, where a group of criminals wants to rob a bank branch in a small town, but bad teamwork and a series of coincidences cause the heist to turn into a nightmare for its participants. The screenplay is quite transparent but surprisingly works without any problems, and the mainstream humor never stoops to primitive slapstick. It has decent casting and non-offensive direction, and it is a film without any glitches, which may not belong to the top tier of its genre, but this time I'll round up from 3.5 stars. Overall impression: 70%. By the way, Disorganized Crime is in no way part of the action genre, as some film fans tend to think. Genre classification here simply missed the mark.

Moms and lazy people of all kinds can rejoice because in Oblomov they will find an even higher level of all their vices and therefore an excuse for their life of passivity. It is sad and touching at the same time to watch a life wreck that has spent 12 years sleeping on the couch, tossing from side to side. Oleg Tabakov acts on a high level as usual, but at the age of 44, he seemed somewhat too old for Oblomov, who is only slightly over 30. In order to give the film more than 3 stars, Oblomov would have had to avoid the traditional Soviet (Russian) disease of unwillingness to change. It is drawn out, with unnecessary flashbacks to childhood, which disrupt the already slow flow of storytelling. I haven't read the novel and the film adaptation lacked a deeper analysis of Oblomov's life stance. I estimate that Goncharov wanted to accuse both the political system in Russia, which definitely did not encourage active life expression, and also to criticize the social stratification in Russia. If you own 350 human "souls," you have guaranteed income and it does not stimulate you to strive to support yourself. Michalkov's film is definitely worth seeing, but it is necessary to arm oneself with patience and approach watching the film properly rested. Overall impression: 60%.

Julio Medem has incredible luck. Usually, his films catch me in an exceptionally positive mood, which makes me give them a greater number of stars than they deserve. Chaotic Ana, according to the standards I commonly apply to cinema, deserves to be discarded, and I, an embarrassing softie, gave it one star, probably out of inappropriate conformism. Lovers of the Arctic Circle is much better off, and I really like Medem's film language and choice of actors, but the way he handles his characters, and all those unbelievable coincidences, missed encounters, all those constructs that accumulated in the screenplay, sometimes slip into self-parody. This film was not supposed to be a comedy and yet titles like The Poacher's Foster Daughter or Noble Millionaire or Lemonade Joe often come to mind when watching it. It simply cannot be taken seriously and my three stars are rather for what the film could be if Medem wasn't so self-centered. Overall impression: 50%.

Please do not be offended, but in this case, in my opinion, the king is completely naked, and his amazing self-confidence and the laughter of those who need to confirm their intellectual status do not change anything about it. The collection of festival awards is just proof for me that members of festival juries are sometimes quite peculiar...

I grew up on Sheridan le Fanu's book, and his collection of short stories, "In a Glass Darkly," still holds a place in my library. After all, the story that served as the basis for Bohumila Zelenková's screenplay is part of this book. Le Fanu is one of the founders, or rather predecessors, of modern horror, and his mysterious stories full of ominous premonitions derived from the gothic novel are ideal material for film adaptation. Eva Sadková relied on experienced actors who do a good job, and the television adaptation also rests on their performances. The set design is modest, but it doesn't detract from the impression of the production. However, I feel that the director could have worked with surprises, as it is too literal and the viewer sees everything before they should. In the story, the narrator describes the story from the perspective of the main character, who is manipulated and until the last moment does not suspect the trouble he is maneuvered into. Overall impression: 70%.