gudaulin

Captain Yossarian has a problem. The government of the United States wants to win the war, the officers want a career and recognition, and Yossarian wants to survive first and foremost. These, as you will agree, are not completely identical goals, especially when Yossarian, with each unnecessary death and every example of the decay of moral values, loses more and more of his ideals and grows disgusted with the callousness and manipulation of the commanding officers. Yossarian is the opposite of exemplary, conscious heroes of war stories about courage and honor. Yossarian does not initially understand the madness around him, but the more he sees it, the more he desires to get rid of it and arrange things his own way. While watching the film, I appreciated the irony, situational comedy, and mockery of the traditional, pathetic concept of war, and yet I fully appreciated Nichols' film only after getting acquainted with the eponymous series. The film does not shy away from things, it is more apt, and I feel a greater presence of the author of the source material, Joseph Heller, in it. By the way, at the time of its creation, which dates back to the Vietnam War, a number of leading American film critics had a problem with the film, specifically with its protagonist. They considered him to be an amoral coward who undermined the anti-Nazi war effort. However, I completely understand Yossarian and his intentions. Overall impression: 90%.

If you have a high-quality script, actors, and director, you can achieve a masterpiece in the mysterious drama genre, just like Fight Club was in its time. However, if you have a weak script, not even a diligent director and a star-studded cast can save it. For Jim Carrey, the film represented an exceptional opportunity to play a truly dark and complicated character that had never appeared in his career before. In fact, Jim never went beyond the grotesque character of Uncle Olaf in A Series of Unfortunate Events. However, all his energy goes to waste because his paranoid character simply cannot develop properly in the unfortunate and predictable script. Perhaps the best difference between a top-notch film and a mediocre one is characterized by the final scene in Fight Club when all certainties of the existing world collapse and the anti-hero of the story knows that he is personally responsible for it. In The Number 23, you get to see an overly moralistic scene that undermines the previous plot to the point of absurdity. Overall impression: 35%.

Probably the best movie by Filip Renč and the first of its kind, where after watching it, I didn't feel the need to be enthusiastic about my dance steps or satisfy my shopping cravings. I don't particularly like this director because of his music video-like and mostly commercial aesthetics, so I can't give it more than four stars, even if I wanted to. I don't take away from the film its decent craftsmanship, good camera work, or soundtrack, but it seems to me that the director is always playing for effect, so the characters overact a little, displaying overly exaggerated emotions. The music and visuals aggressively attack the viewer's senses - and maybe I am just biased because I don't agree with Renč's political and lobbying contacts and business deals. Overall impression: 60%.

There is an interesting concept here - a gas that fundamentally changes human mood is an idea that could lead to a lot of tricky situations and offered many possibilities. Unfortunately, the screenwriter handled it in the most banal way, so a run-of-the-mill comedy was created, into which the creators put everything they thought could attract the audience. We have a crazy inventor, a group of gangsters who want to steal his invention, chases and fights in the style of old slapsticks, a Wild West town, a charming beauty who falls in love with the main character, etc. There is simply nothing here that would make this film outstanding, and because the humor is so barren and the story resigns on having any logic, the only reason to revisit the film today is Jean Lefebvre in the lead role. Overall impression: 40%.

A large community of film fans is currently discussing whether the film event of this year will be Slumdog Millionaire or Gran Torino, or which other film could shake up their position. As of yesterday, I have a different candidate for the best film of the year, and it is The Baader Meinhof Complex. This fateful drama was not written by a screenwriter with a great dose of imagination and it was not directed by a filmmaker trying to achieve commercial success. This story was written by history, and the filmmakers simply transferred it to the screen with the highest level of erudition possible. The Baader Meinhof Complex has top-notch craftsmanship with its camera work, editing, music, and performances. I can't find any reason to criticize it. The film tries to look at the issue of leftist terrorism objectively from a distance and attempts to map out its roots. Among the actors, Moritz Bleibtreu stands out, who, despite his age, is an experienced acting veteran, and among the female roles, Johanna Wokalek shines in the role of the terrorist Ensslin. She managed to create a perfect study of the transformation of a character from an idealistic young activist to a cold-blooded, cynical fanatic capable of destroying anyone she considers an obstacle to her plans, overshadowing even the character of Meinhof, who was an icon of the radically leftist movement at the time. I think we will hear more about this talented German actress. Despite its long duration, I was not bored for even a moment and the film flew by incredibly quickly. This is not a popcorn action film, but an exceedingly realistic action drama, and one of the essential films of our time. Overall impression: 100%.

When it premiered, the critics received The Tin Drum with certain reservations. They claimed that the film is merely a literal adaptation of the novel to the screen, and director Schlöndorff allegedly didn't incorporate anything special or outstanding into the film. Nevertheless, the film was awarded several international accolades. Moreover, even if the film critics were right, it is still an adaptation of one of the most significant European novels, an undisputed classic with an exceptional and extreme protagonist, dealing with groundbreaking events in (not only) German history. The Tin Drum is not a pleasant or likable film. Its characters perform ugly acts and do not allow you to feel sympathy towards them. A conformist and a Nazi in one, a stunted weirdo, a voracious bitch – that's not exactly the company you'd want to spend tea time with. The sexuality served by Schlöndorff can unsettle not only a staunch puritan. Oskar's peculiar position between a child's perception of the world and an adult's rational thinking constantly confuses the audience. Several scenes are disturbing to the point that they unsettle you, and if nothing else, the performance of the actor portraying Oskar is so suggestive that you will probably not forget it. As a bonus, you will witness the depiction of one of the most important and symbolic events of the German-Polish war - the bloody siege of the Gdansk post office. The Tin Drum is a unique and indescribable work that no film enthusiast should miss. Overall impression: 90%.

Veber's situational comedy usually relies on the contrast of mismatched pairs, and A Pain in the A... does not deviate from this definition. It is precisely the foundation of this film that allows its humor to work so well, that Veber returned to it in his old age and filmed a remake of the film for which he once wrote the screenplay. Before him, Americans also used the same material and commissioned the famous Wilder to improve the studio's budget and get the most out of the meeting between a cold-blooded killer tasked with a key mission in his career and an ambitious troublemaker. It is customary to praise the original version and criticize - as film fans say - unnecessary remakes. However, I will not do this in the case of A Pain in the A...; over time, I have seen all three versions and do not consider any of them to be artistic failures. Not even A Pain in the Ass, although film critics and fans ritually shot it down. Each version has its strengths and weaknesses. The combination of the best elements from all three films would result in a great action movie. Lino Ventura's presence is amazing in A Pain in the A... He was not a comedic actor, but the role of a cold-blooded killer suits him perfectly. He does not overact, and you simply believe in his character. The desperation in his eyes looks authentic and creates even more amusement. On the other hand, there is Jacques Brel. I do like him as a chansonnier - although he is essentially trying to play a comic character seriously, it comes off as rather annoying here. I have a fixation on Pignon as a likable character, but in Brel's performance, he represents such a bothersome individual that I would gladly punch him. Overall impression: 80%.

When I saw this comedy for the first time, I really enjoyed it, but honestly mainly because of the devilishly charming Elizabeth Hurley rather than the quality of the script and the acting performances. In addition, I had the opportunity to watch the original version since then, and this comparison did not turn out well at all for the remake. The difference is two honest stars. The original version relied on very good acting and a quality script with witty dialogue in the British style. Bedazzled juxtaposes Elizabeth's sexy outfits and her accentuated bosom with a series of gags, some of which are not strong and especially some are predictable. It is still a light, above-average American comedy, but I can't get rid of memories of the original film. Overall impression 50%.

An art film for connoisseurs who can enjoy a wordless film, one also taking place in a single room where only the set decorations and actors' attire, along with their expressions, resemble the changing social atmosphere and passing decades. We can observe the 1930s and the period of the leftist coalition against the French fascists, the defeat of France and subsequent occupation, the liberation by the Americans, the arrival of rock and roll and the relaxed atmosphere of a prosperous consumer society, colonial wars, the rise of racism, and much more. The film requires more attention and demands one to have a sense for this remarkable game with the viewer's imagination. Overall impression: 90%.

A western from a period when public interest in the genre was waning, with the production of classic westerns shifting to Europe, giving rise to the phenomenon of so-called spaghetti westerns. In the USA, significantly fewer films were made than a decade earlier. However, they stopped being so formulaic, and there were attempts at innovation and new perspectives on the "Wild West" phenomenon. Bandolero! has a traditional form, but the characters are more nuanced and not just black-and-white. Another positive aspect is the decent acting performances. Overall impression: 50%, but genre enthusiasts can safely add another 10-20%.