gudaulin

A whole series of films about the traumas of Vietnam War veterans have been made, and it is logical that over time, veterans from the Middle East wars also received attention. Although Alexandre Moors tries, he is not and never will be a master director. A comparison with Sam Mendes' Jarhead comes to mind, where much less happens, the main character hardly participates in any action, and yet the film feels more urgent, more consistent, and more convincing. From the beginning, I had a feeling that something was missing in this film or that there was an excess of something. Purely from a filmmaking perspective, the film deserves three stars, but I have given many films the same rating and had a much better impression of them. These simply mean completely different three stars. What truly bothers me is the psychology of the characters. The mental processes of the sergeant and, above all, Brandon were not only unprofessional but downright nonsensical; the murder of a villager is inexcusable (although obviously insignificant for the film's creators). It is really strange how much time the film characters devote to dissecting their emotions. They are volunteers, military professionals, and mercenaries all in one. If we were to apply the same standards to participants in both world wars, who in the overwhelming majority had no choice and experienced infinitely worse situations, then a team of psychiatrists and psychologists would have to take care of every single one of the millions of returnees for the rest of their lives. We in the West have become overly sensitive. It also requires a bit of empathy toward the other side of the conflict, which faced overwhelming odds, suffered incomparably greater losses, and had reason to consider themselves victims of aggression, seeing their participation in the war as a necessity to defend their homeland, their ideals, and their way of life. As for Jennifer Aniston's presence, Toni Collette reliably outshined her in the role of the second war mother. She is simply a class above and a more interesting character actress than Jennifer, who, besides her elegant appearance, doesn't offer much else. Overall impression: 45%. There are much more mature and powerful films on this topic.

I saw the first episode and I have occasionally returned to the series a few times, but I have never found the courage to dedicate myself to it systematically. Not because of its format - it is very good at being what it wants to be and has excellent focus. It can hit the mark, and if you can laugh at the situations that Mark and Jeremy regularly find themselves in, then it is exceptionally entertaining. The problem lies in the approach to the characters. Both protagonists are outsiders who work hard to maintain their unenviable positions. They don't need any enemies or bad luck. They owe their exemplary loser status to exceptional self-centeredness, low social intelligence, thoughtlessness, selfishness, and a lack of tact. Through their inner monologues, they reveal themselves to you without any pretenses, and I don't believe that you would want to share a household with those losers. Peep Show is similar to television contest formats that find entertainment in exposing the flaws of the contestants and humiliating them. The series is similarly ruthless, and cynical, and as a result, ultimately more sad than lively. I cannot tune in correctly to it and find empathy for its (anti)heroes. Overall impression: 60%.

The Oscars went to the right people. The Killing Fields is an extraordinary film (not only) in the contemporary context with excellent camera work, a strong story, and high-quality casting. It is not the fault of the creators that some people lack context. At that time, it was about fresh events when the genocide of the Khmer Rouge on their own nation shook public perception worldwide. With the passage of the decades, a political film has become a historical film. But that is an inevitable process. The story is not encrypted in any way, and to understand its background it is enough to read some basic information about Cambodia in the 1970s. The film depicts the meeting and developing friendship of an American reporter with his local guide during the height of the Indochina War. After the fall of the pro-American regime, foreign reporters leave the country, but the native interpreter gets caught up in the machinery of the ultra-left regime and survives only with great effort and a good dose of luck. The drama cannot overshadow the fact that it is directed by Western filmmakers and intended for a Western audience - a purely Cambodian approach to the material would be even more depressing, darker, and more hopeless. But certainly also more atmospheric. Even so, the shows us a number of extraordinary scenes of war chaos and the suffering of prisoners in reeducation camps and subjects of the regime. Joffé shoots in a documentary style, and you simply have to believe his depiction of the landscape exposed to horrors. Mike Oldfield's impressive sound design is also worth mentioning. Haing S. Ngor, an immigrant and non-actor, a doctor by profession, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role as Dith Pran. It is certainly arguable that American bombardment of the landscape is responsible for the extreme brutality of the Khmer Rouge. However, significantly larger and more systematic bombings in Vietnam did not lead to the radicalization of the local regime. The repulsive nature of the Khmer Rouge regime is owed in part to the fact that their leaders drew inspiration from Maoism and Mao's Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. Their profile also manifested through persecution by government authorities. Sihanouk was one of the typical oriental despots, and his secret police tortured and killed people on a whim. Overall impression: 90%.

Srđan Dragojević is an animalistic filmmaker who knows no limits and goes beyond all conventions, which is exactly what harms him because if he took his foot off the gas a bit, an exceptionally strong film could have been created, a darker and more cynical version of Kusturica. His war journey into the heart of Balkan wars - Pretty Village, Pretty Flame - seemed terribly chaotic and just didn't sit well with me. In the first half, I felt like I understood Dragojevič and was watching a four-star film, but suddenly the absurdity and violence became too much. It crossed some line and I have to lower my rating, whether I want to or not. I understand Srđan with his radical settling of scores with nationalism and war bravado, but there's a limit... Overall impression: 60%.

A derivation of the Scandinavian project The Bridge. An intelligent, brutal, psychopathic serial killer, a mismatched pair of investigators of the opposite sex, cross-border cooperation of two neighboring state's criminal cases, and an attempt to create a dark and mysterious atmosphere. In contrast to The Bridge, Pagan Peak holds back, is more sober, and less flashy and the initial atmosphere also partially disappears with each subsequent episode. However, it easily maintains three stars. Overall impression: 60%.

Michael Winner was a thoroughly average filmmaker and none of his films can claim an honorable place in cinema heaven. Out of what I had the opportunity to see, The Nightcomers is the best, even though Michael couldn't figure out the genre and the resulting effect is, I'm afraid, a bit of unintended magic. The Nightcomers certainly won't hold up as a horror today and it doesn't make sense to seek it out for that purpose. It is a question of whether it would have held up in its genre at the time because there has been a shift in the expectations of the audience and their threshold of sensitivity. Today, it is much more of a mysterious drama, for me with a touch of ironic commentary on the contemporary concept of sexuality at the end of the Victorian era. In any case, The Nightcomers reminded me of Haneke's The White Ribbon in some ways, but with the difference being that where Winner draws the atmosphere, he basically fumbles blindly, whereas Haneke knows exactly what he's doing and he is brilliant at it. The casual Brando is fine and represents support for the film, but I had no problems with any actor's performance. Sadomasochistic games and obedient children are not boring, and I would be harming the film if I didn't give it four stars. Overall impression: 70%.

Films that promise something and don't deliver it inevitably have a hard time. They fail in the most important aspect - they are simply not entertaining. They are unremarkable, unfunny, banal, and very easily forgettable. They are not bad in a way that would provoke or anger you, they simply bore you. I felt a little sorry for Sarah Drew because she is not a bad actress, but there was nothing to lean on here. Overall impression: 25%.

Those who like action thrillers from the nineties can easily add a star, and if you don't mind that it's all naive, schematic, and the concept is stupid as hell, feel free to add a third one as well. Hogan is not a complete loser, even though he is a routine actor. Jon Voight overacts, to say the least, you can recognize the villain from miles away, and if someone wanted to count all the script acrobatics, they would have a very difficult task ahead of them. However, Most Wanted can be something to do during a boring evening when you can't sleep. Overall impression: 20%.

A very awkward attempt to come to terms with the existence of the Slovak state. Lettrich has never been one of the best Slovak creators, but this is a weaker moment even within his filmography. Many things disturb me, from the acting performances, when even such aces as Kvietik or Kroner fail, through the atmosphere of regime decay (I would easily believe in what Lettrich describes in the summer of 1944, not two years earlier), to individual characters and their dialogues. Moreover, the budget he had to work with is obvious. Making a war and historical film for mere pennies is simply not possible. I also attribute the poorer technical quality to this and the age of the film, as I had problems with the sound and only deciphered some of the passages with difficulty. Overall impression: 40%.

After the merciless Django, I swore that I would finally finish with that old scoundrel and be able to stop taking pills for high blood pressure. But I am unteachable, and even two days after the screening, I feel like I'd entered the path of a car collision for the millionth time, thinking that this time I really won't feel any pain upon impact. No, Tarantino cannot disappoint....in about the same way that diarrhea or a migraine can't. He's still the same oversized and aging teenager refusing to grow up, a self-centered poser and seller of literal references to past junk. It's the same inability to work with characters and settings, build a story, and come up with a strong emotionally impactful point. I guessed the finale within a few minutes. Tarantino has terrible taste in the audience, which he projects into his films, and he works with references to genres that I couldn't care less about, and his concept of humor bypasses me completely. He's incapable of any complex metaphors, deeper work with material, time and mood, or social processes. He's a typical snake oil salesman. He doesn't go beneath the surface even by a millimeter, and nothing excuses him for not even intending to. I'm not at all surprised by the absurdly exaggerated violence, typically conceived as grotesque, the senselessly overblown runtime, nor the effort to be cool under any circumstances. The last Tarantino film that truly interested me was Jackie Brown, so why am I surprised? One star is for the top-notch camera work and a '60s soundtrack, as well as for the acting of DiCaprio and Pitt. Margot Robbie didn't get the opportunity to be anything other than a sexual ornament. Overall impression: 25%.