gudaulin

Including a large number of historical events ranging from the prelude to war to the first major offensives, the bloody massacres of trench warfare, the disillusionment of ordinary soldiers, occasional visits to the Italian and Russian fronts, peace negotiations, and post-war developments into a single feature film means mastering the art of abbreviation perfectly, but above all, having the ability to capture the most important and characteristic aspects. The film manages this surprisingly well through the personal confession of a French soldier who was there from beginning to end. Based on archival footage, the film is well thought out, clear, and impressive, with a clear anti-war message. Just a small note - as much as the film tries to appear impartial, the story told from the other side of no man's land would be different. A similar divergence would also be present in the depiction of a soldier's adventures on the Russian front. Overall impression: 90%.

This film is a typical representative of so-called experiential cinema. It relies on perfect technical execution, grand spectacle, and the backdrop of a large studio. It is directly predestined for the big screen, where the perfect image will fully excel. The most impressive part is the first third, which is also in line with the concept of trench warfare as we know it. However, as a whole, the film definitely lacks authenticity. It is simply an adventurous mission that was created in the imagination of its creators and has nothing to do with the reality of the battles of 1917. A similar story could purely hypothetically take place at the very beginning or end of the war, but certainly not during the time when the armies were firmly confined to trenches and shelters due to the enemy's firepower. The structure of the film resembles computer games where the hero progresses and completes individual tasks. It is definitely worth seeing, even though it does not make sense to ponder the meaningfulness of the combat mission (perhaps Napoleon more than a hundred years ago could have instructed his units in a faster and more efficient way). The performances and visual aspects are the reasons why you should watch 1917. Overall impression: 75%.

I have to admit that the atmosphere of the movie, as well as the solid cast and performances, impressed me. The visual aspects of the film, the dirt, uniformity, and archaic industrial technology of an era when totalitarian states experienced their golden years, earned the most points with me. However, I have to say that even the book, considered the best novel of the 20th century, did not make as much of an impression on me as I had expected, and the film adaptation did not even come close to the quality of the book. This is because Orwell wrote his seminal work at a time when a similar vision of the triumph of totalitarian regimes, which he knew from his own experience, was immediately looming, terrifying him, and considering it as a truly possible success. But I was born into a time when the era of industrial totalitarian regimes, based on a mass concept of society, was overcome, and those regimes either long since disappeared or represented a mockery of the ideas of their founders. The inhabitants had already emptied and adapted them to their own image long ago. Orwell described systems that function and to which their supporters and enemies believe. The image that I remember from the 80s represented a long-rotted system that had long since denied the ideas of those who had invented them. Of those old dystopias of a similar nature, the intimate novel "Kallocain" by the Swedish author Karin Boye made a much greater impression on me. Even greater depression was caused by other novels about the decay of society consumed by consumerism. Orwell fights with old demons, and in reality, the threat of totalitarianism comes from elsewhere today. Modern technology already allows for greater control over human psychology and behavior than Orwell could imagine, and sometime in the middle of the century, the possibility of control will be absolute. Ideology is not necessary when you have cutting-edge technology and media power. Overall impression: 60%.

Emmerich as a director cannot be surprised, because he is essentially monothematic. His strengths and weaknesses are intimately known to the audience, so even his latest film should be avoided by anyone expecting something more than bombastic effects and action. His conception of the end of the world can be immensely attacked and ridiculed from intellectual positions. As is traditional for him, he resigns on even the most basic logic in his storytelling, boldly using the most cliched genre schemes, unabashedly stuffing his film with all possible pop-cultural symbols from Princess Diana to Mona Lisa. The dialogues are stupid, and as is customary for him, it is heavily American patriotic, permeated with family values, the plot is predictable, and the characters are clearly readable. From the very beginning, experienced viewers can infer which characters will survive and which will be deservedly punished for their "sins." On the other hand, if one looks at his film with detachment, despite all its stupidity, it is entertaining, decently ticking along, and well cast both in terms of types and acting performances. It's definitely not a film I would have the slightest desire to revisit in the future, but as a popcorn treat, it is bearable in one viewing. Overall impression: 50%.

A war epic with a generous budget featuring beautiful exteriors, crowd scenes, and set in the unexplored cinematic landscape of a war conflict in the Far East. However, it suffers from several drawbacks, such as sentimentality, nationalism, and insufficient distance from the subject. The war, as portrayed by the director, is about heroism and dying in traditional samurai style, rather than about the brutality and tragedies that inevitably come with it. Overall impression: 50%.

I have long had a problem with East Asian cinema, and in the case of the film 2046, which was preceded by the reputation of a "megafilm" or at least a big festival film, it is no different. It must be said that the genre definition of sci-fi, or fantasy, is purely confusing in this case, although the opening titles create the impression of a futuristic blockbuster. However, this is not essential for my review. What is important is what the film is actually about. Love? Seriously? Visually, it is certainly an extremely impressive matter, but it is as far from Tarkovsky's spirit, or rather his depth of soul, as I am from being an astronaut. The film is dominated by beautiful women's faces dreamily gazing into the distance or uttering banalities. Beautifully dressed people, meticulous hairstyles, evening makeup, bright red nails, and beautiful piano tones accompanying it all. Slightly decadent characters, a somewhat dreamy atmosphere, and a mysteriously acting game with numbers. It left me with the impression of carefully created kitsch. It is not a cheap, loudly painted plaster gnome, but an ambitious attempt to reach the highest goals in the realm of kitsch. Unfortunately, it is a damn boring attempt... Overall impression: 10% for the female cast.

A straightforward action affair called 96 Hours, with a kitschy plot and screenplay, which, except for the protagonist, does not contain any characters and adores violence, celebrated an unprecedented commercial success and has become the most successful French film of the last decade. So it makes sense that we now have a whole series of imitators, i.e., films based on action coming from the American film school, a criminal environment, and an uncompromising battle with a pile of corpses on the way to the protagonist's revenge. This time the creators cast the legend of French action, Jean Reno, in the main role, but I feel that he is a bit old for this type of character and his performance feels like a template of dozens of previous similar roles. Additionally, the screenplay is quite hastily put together and the direction couldn't save it either. Richard Berry is a respected and popular actor in France, but this profession obviously suits him better than directing, which requires a lot more from a person. I also resent the familiar conflict between a good and bad gangster, which turns universally accepted ethical norms upside down. The good gangster only murders, steals, bribes, smuggles, and cheats, while the bad one wants to distribute drugs. Well, we certainly haven't seen that in a film yet - it's a brand-new idea! But then why do a couple dozen film titles, including The Godfather, come to mind? Overall impression: 40%.

I've only seen the first two seasons, then this format got a bit tiresome for me. The series was preceded by a generous advertising campaign that set expectations very high. 24 is a typical commercial product, with its advantage lying in dynamic editing and a script that revels in dramatic twists, not to mention the lead performance by Kiefer Sutherland. On the other hand, the series is accompanied by a number of script shortcomings, such as the nonsensical and overcomplicated motif of the destroyed plane in the first season. There are also plenty of genre clichés from action movies and the invincibility of the main character. If Jack Bauer can do it, then why do Americans have trouble in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere? In the second season, the superfluous subplot with Bauer's daughter is evident, and similar criticisms could be found upon closer examination. Nevertheless, the dynamic plot and script twists place the series slightly above average. Overall impression: 60%.

Danny Boyle won over audiences with Shallow Grave and cemented his reputation as a talented filmmaker with the cult classic Trainspotting. Naturally, expectations were high for his next project, but unfortunately, it didn't quite live up to the hype, although I still give it 4 stars. It's a film that approaches its subject matter too timidly and indecisively. The pacing of the film fluctuates, the screenplay is awkward at times, and it ends with a disappointingly happy ending. Within its genre, it's still above average, but from the director of Trainspotting, I simply expected more. 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%.