gudaulin

This is an interesting example of a classic horror film from a time when filmmaking couldn't rely on technical inventions and digital effects, so it had to rely on the atmosphere created by the script, play of shadows, sounds, and acting expressions. Surprisingly, it works very well, making this original rendition a worthy competition to the later remake. The tension gradually builds up, and it is incredible how little is needed to create it. The horror theme is closely related to a sexual topic, similar to the vampire horror films of that time. The competition between two women over one man can lead (one of them has claws and a nature to go all out) to a truly terrifying drama. Overall impression: 65%.

I like movies that engage the audience, and Whiteout certainly does just that. This happens in the prologue alone, where the pilot gets up from the controls and goes to his passengers intending to take over the cargo they are carrying. A screenwriter who doesn't think about the audience would let those passengers be put to sleep, poisoned, suffocated, or whatever else, and that would be boring because then the story could successfully end within a few minutes. However, a pilot who pulls out a gun and starts a furious bloody shootout, even though he knows the plane will crash to the ground...now that's different. Tension can be felt in every second. The crew exchanges gunfire with submachine guns, and the plane helplessly crashes to the ground, so that the plot can continue in an equally entertaining, but unfortunately contrived and silly way. You see, on the other hand, I like clever movies, and Whiteout certainly isn't one of those. The mistake probably comes from the comic book source material, but the direction contributes just as much. The film is enjoyable when it has action scenes, such as fighting and wielding an ice axe in a snowstorm with minimal visibility and a temperature of around 50 degrees below zero. But the logic falls apart and the ending is also lacking because the action finale comes too early and the big surprise isn't actually that surprising. Setting the story in Antarctica is original on one hand, but on the other, it brings with it numerous genre limitations, because searching for a perpetrator in such a small community wouldn't be such a big challenge if the screenwriter adhered to the aforementioned storytelling logic. Overall impression: 40%.

It is 1931 and the economic crisis is reaching its peak. Everyone is trying to grab a piece of bread in this uncertain time and move up into the spotlight or forget about the difficulties of the era through some type of show. One option for escape is a dance marathon, which, however, has nothing to do with dance as a physical activity for relaxation and entertainment. It is an exhausting struggle to see which couple can keep moving in the arena for as long as possible. The prospect of profit leads the contestants to utter exhaustion, and the manipulative host only encourages their self-destruction. A famous director is said to be in attendance, claiming to be looking for new stars for his film. Then he offers a staged marriage to the performers to increase the viewership of his declining spectacle. At regular intervals, the "dance creations" are interrupted by a race between the couples, and these shots of exhausted unhappiness are among the strongest moments of the film. The last three couples are being eliminated, so everyone tries to push themselves to the limit. The film is actually a metaphor for the ruthless competition in American show business and society as a whole. An incredibly depressing affair and one of the most hopeless films I have had the opportunity to see. Overall impression: 95%.

Jeunet is one of my longtime favorite directors, as his directing style based on playfulness and visuality suits me, and I generously disregard the unfinished storytelling. However, A Very Long Engagement does not require such generosity. Besides Amelie, this is his most audience-friendly film. Even here, Jeunet's fans can expect the usual colorful filters, playful scenes, detours, and quirks. However, they are subordinate to their purpose, namely to highlight the anti-war focus of the film about the search for a groom lost in the whirlwind of trench warfare. It is evident that the film was made by an acclaimed director who no longer has to laboriously gather resources for the realization of his ideas or convince stars to participate in his project. Jeunet's faithful collaborators appear again, such as the indispensable Pinon or Rufus, but also international star Jodie Foster, and they all act flawlessly. Audrey Tautou, whom Jeunet tested out in Amelie, delivers the second most remarkable performance of her career as a girl searching for her loved one. Jeunet knows how to shoot action scenes his way, so they differ from other filmmakers who shoot war films. I have to give the film the highest rating, especially for the field hospital destruction scene, when Jeunet manages to gradually increase tension second by second as the airstrike bomb slowly penetrates the roof. Overall impression: 90%.

A typical film product of its time, where it is definitely necessary, even after many decades, to appreciate Katharine Hepburn's acting skills. However, the screenplay presents a characteristic conflict, or rather the idea of happiness of the bourgeoisie at that time, and to be honest, a typically petty-bourgeois film like Alice Adams is difficult to find. The main heroine is poor and feels so very poor in her only ball gown, that it gives her a headache, which she deals with throughout the entire film. Her efforts to marry and climb the social ladder are met with overt elitism from the bourgeoisie, who scorn the common people. However, her family's social status at that time did not necessarily mean poverty, nor would it mean poverty nowadays, by the way. In any case, those who enjoy classic films of that era will not be disappointed. Oscars during that time were given out with some certainty to conventional, but well-made films. Overall impression: 40%.

This film is a significantly emotional, plotless film that is difficult to describe for this reason. It is a film about searching for one's roots and attempting to map out one's childhood and adolescence. As a story, it is essentially about nothing, and the adventures of a group of teenagers from a poor suburb of an American metropolis are completely forgotten in a few days. However, the nostalgic melancholic mood will resonate with me for a long time. It is definitely not a bad film and considering how inexperienced the director was, I consider it more than successful. However, considering the above, it has its limits, for which I can give no more than three stars. Dito Montiel made a film where the combination of music, images, and performances rarely works well. Overall impression: 65%.

The three stars I'm giving the film are justified because I know the play of the same name from an excellent performance at my local theater, where the message of the play seemed more modern and multi-layered to me. The film, of course, benefits from the presence of two great acting stars, but it doesn't deny its theatrical origin or the fact that it is, from today's perspective, more like a TV show filmed in a studio with minimal outdoor scenes. From the beginning to the end, it is driven by dialogues and confrontations between two conflicting characters - an emotional king who has unlimited possibilities but is limited by his abilities, and a rational thinker named Becket who, nevertheless, decides at a certain point to follow his own value ladder rather than power calculations. The latter has much greater abilities, but his options are limited by his subordinate position. For me, this play is more suited for the stage than for the movie screen. Overall impression: 65%.

A classic disaster film about a plane crash in the middle of an empty desert, which brings a group of diverse characters to the screen and portrays their mutual struggle to survive a critical situation. Although somewhat dated in its directorial approach, it is still fully functional and, in comparison to what is commonly seen in the genre today with flaws in the scripts, definitely above average. Overall impression: 65%.

This film reminded me of a joke about a foreigner traveling through Russia by train and after several hours of waiting at the station, he disgustedly asks the train conductor what the problem is. The engine driver is changing the locomotive. For so long?! He's changing it for vodka... Honestly, this is a completely average gangster film, so average that I realized I had seen it years ago, which wouldn't be strange if I hadn't realized it during the last scene. I had perfectly erased the film from my memory. It has an uneven pace with a lot of dull moments, but it scores points with its atmosphere of a country where the state structure is collapsing and general chaos prevails. Widespread corruption, unemployment, and alcoholism. The absurd scene where a wounded gangster stops an ambulance and demands to be taken to the hospital, only to find out that the ambulance has been "privatized" for five years and a small business owner is currently transporting a load of cabbage heads in it, is typical of the film. Overall impression: 55%.

A comedy should entertain and I have no choice but to say that I didn't laugh once during the whole two hours - in fact, I didn't even get the feeling that I should be laughing. Whenever a situation that seemed like humor was approaching, it was usually ruined by some vulgarity, stupidity, or the scriptwriter's failure. This film clearly targets a younger audience in their teenage years, which is the reason for the naivety, insincerity of the storytelling, and cheaper humor. It remains true that the film can convey some timeless differences between the female and male perspectives on the world and relationships, but a film like Barefoot in the Park can sell romance and immaturity of relationships twice as effectively with infinitely greater elegance and style, and any episode of The Simpsons can reveal the struggles of parenthood and marriage in a lot funnier and more cultivated way. The main female characters, led by Katherine Heigl, are a good aspect of the film, as well as the awareness that American studios produce infinitely dumber and more poorly crafted films in the same genre. Overall impression: 40%.