gudaulin

I would like to borrow my opening words from elsewhere: "Overwrought and poorly told phantasmagoria"... because they succinctly and accurately characterize what you can expect from the series. According to Alex de la Iglesia, he worked on the series for 6 years, reserved only a maximum of one week for the screenplay based on the result, and it took him the longest time to convince the producers to invest finances and studio support in such garbage. Honestly, I am amazed that the series was created under the patronage of HBO, which usually sets the bar for quality high. I like storytelling and enjoy it, but Alex is a terrible storyteller. It cannot be claimed that the problem lies in the subject itself, it is rather about its execution, about Alex's superficial approach to the material. He wastefully indulges in ideas only to thwart their potential. The mystery genre relies on emotions much more than on rationality, but that does not mean that no laws should apply to it, and that the behavior of the characters will not be guided by any logic. I am surprised by the decent rating on FilmBooster because Alex's lack of restraint and inconsistency moves the genre from horror or fantasy to grotesque in many places... but to each their own. I will not in the least accommodate the carelessly shot mishmash with poor effects and a stupid screenplay, there are others for that. Overall impression: 10%.

I call this category of festival films "Rohypnol" for their fascinating ability to reliably put you to sleep after just a few seconds. Imagine the sea waves, pebbles on the beach, and calming sounds, and the disaster is complete. I would like to mention many other things I saw in the movie, but unfortunately, I don't remember anything else. Overall impression: 5% - and don't ask me what it's for.

During its release in movie theaters, the film was met with conflicting reactions, ranging from enthusiastic ovations to significant doubts. I must admit that I didn't have much faith in Mašín's debut film, so I avoided it at the time. However, the time has come to catch up, and it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise. 3 Seasons in Hell is primarily a carefully and honestly crafted film - such professionalism combined with a solid budget is not common in the Czech Republic. It may indeed be a bit too polished, and I would have preferred the film to be more surreal and provocative, but Mašín simply and correctly decided to make a film for a broader audience, who are not necessarily as interested in the fates and work of this enfant terrible of Czech culture. I agree with the opinion that this is a quality film that may not deserve a perfect 5-star rating but should be up there, and in this case, I happily round it up. Especially for the presence of the charismatic Karolina Gruszka, who perfectly fulfills my idea of a fateful Bond woman, capable of driving her surroundings and especially men to the brink of madness. Yes, one could die for a woman like her, but it's better to run far away from her... Overall impression: 90%.

It is said that the first five minutes decide your relationship with a movie. In that case, I would have to give it a very low rating, because for about the first half an hour, the film bored me and I couldn't get into its rhythm and mood. However, gradually the story started to captivate me more and more, and in the last hour, I enjoyed every scene regardless of Altman's traditionally slow pace and sparing use of editing. Altman is deceiving with the title because although three women do appear in his film, the (co)owner of the guesthouse is explicitly missing. The majority of the spotlight belongs to Shelley Duvall and Sissy Spacek. The majority of cinema-goers fixate on Sissy Spacek as the ugly duckling with a good heart, and Shelley Duvall, well, she's the ugly one from The Shining with oddly bulging fish-like eyes. But here, film fans would be astonished because both girls are actually femme fatales. True, never at the same time, because the film relies heavily on the strange interaction and interweaving of their characters. One takes the lead for a while, and then the other. Shelley, alias Millie, is a girl who can be described as clingy. She tries to attract attention, gain admiration, and make friends at any cost. Sissy, alias Pinky, desperately seeks a role model, someone she could enter into life with. By chance, they collide and a game begins to see who gradually gains the upper hand. Altman is actually deceiving with the style or genre because his traditional collage of visuals and stories is gone. This is a pure psychological drama with a touch of surrealism as if it came out of Polanski's workshop. I truly enjoyed the peculiar mood and provocative female game, and 3 Women will receive my overall impression of 75%.

Fahrenheit 451 is nothing more or less than a dignified adaptation of Ray Bradbury's famous novel. I remember that, for example, Mel Gibson toyed with the idea of a remake repeatedly, and he certainly was not alone. You can sprinkle in a few million dollars, and add a series of special effects, but without a fundamental revision of the original text, there is nothing to be done with this work. I have no problem with Truffaut; in fact, I would say that his traditionally cooler and detached film style fits the story perfectly. However, I do have an issue with the literary source. I find Bradbury's depiction of totalitarianism unconvincing and the rebellion against the system naive. Bradbury created his work at a time when television gained a dominant position in the field of information distribution, and light television entertainment quickly overwhelmed the naively conceived idea of "elevating" the masses through television broadcasts of operas and educational documentaries. Bradbury seemed to think that higher culture would succumb to the battle against superficial pop culture, and the demise of culture would lead to the establishment of a totalitarian system. However, this allegory has several flaws. Books are not a stronghold of higher culture; they are merely a medium that can have various content and quality, just like a film or a television program. Except for the insane experiment of the Khmer Rouge, who took away much more from the people and essentially everything, no one ever thought of destroying books. Instead, they usually succeeded in taming books, often with great success. Bradbury would be shocked by the millions of copies of prominent authors' works and propagandistic writings in many dictatorships. The survival and success of a regime are not so much related to the size of libraries and cultural subsidies, but rather to the (in)ability to satisfy and entertain the population through consumption. The dictatorships in Eastern Europe certainly did not fall because Vaclav Havel's plays were not allowed or Marta Kubišová could not sing; they fell because the population hungry for consumption exchanged them for full shops following the example of Western Europe. The authoritarian system in China successfully survives even with censorship simply because China's economy is booming, and the extremely anti-cultural and intolerant religious system in Saudi Arabia, well-fed by oil, speaks for itself. Truffaut cannot be denied a good hand in choosing the main characters (perhaps I imagined the wife to be more insipid), the impressiveness of some scenes (the internal struggle of the informer), and above all, the atmosphere (the red fire truck ominously racing through the streets). Nevertheless, in the world of cinema today, I can find much more interesting and chilling dystopias. Overall impression: 60%.

I definitely don't claim that this is a bad movie, but the expectations were too high in this case, and during the final scene, I was thinking, is this really the end? Is there nothing else coming? Are you telling me this film won at a category A festival and is considered by film fans and critics alike as the European film event of the year? The thing is, this film somehow deceives in its substance and offers substitute emotions, or rather, in my opinion, it fails precisely in what it is most adored for, i.e., a statement about a certain country and political system. Many reviews enthusiastically admire its amazing authenticity, but how many of those viewers experienced communist Romania first-hand? I haven't been there, but from the testimonies of eyewitnesses, I know that even ten years after the revolution, some places in the countryside had no electricity, many remote areas are today economically worse off than during Ceausescu's regime, and the mountainous regions are depopulating. Comparing the former Romania to Czechoslovakia is misguided, as the situation there was disproportionately worse and, above all, systemically different. The abortion that is at the core of Mungiu's film, is presented as purely a technical problem. Those girls, just like the other film characters, are not victims of the system, but part of it. Polish films of moral unrest were able to address moral conflict issues in the behavior of their characters during the deep communism of the 70s and 80s, whereas here, a college student undergoes an abortion of a fetus that is merely an obstacle to her career. We learn very little about the system itself, and it is necessary to realize that abortions were also prohibited in a number of European countries in the recent past, and a similar film could be made in present-day Poland, in a democratic system. Since 1993, abortion there has been limited to the absolute minimum of possibilities. That pre-revolutionary Romania was an inhospitable and freedom-restricted place to live in is quite evident in some places, but that is just a secondary motive. If the main problem for Romanian college students in dormitories was obtaining a certain brand of Western cigarettes, then those girls really didn't have a bad life. In short, it is watchable but, from my perspective, also an overrated film with an unclear concept. Overall impression: 60%.

Berlin has fallen, the leader of the German nation has passed into eternity, and the surrender of the German armed forces was expected with each passing day. No one is rushing into battle anymore because who would want to die just before the end of the war? Actually, only the clean-up remains. However, a group of German soldiers who have gathered on the shores of the Baltic Sea do not want to surrender to the Red Army. They are not enticed by the prospect of infamous Siberian labor camps and forced work. They are considering escaping by boat to Denmark, where British captivity offers a considerably more favorable future. The Soviet captain does not press them. He, too, lives with the prospect of an imminent ceasefire and does not want to risk a clash against tenfold superiority. Moreover, he has enough worries of his own. His group has settled in an orphanage, and a German boy would like to experience the battle firsthand and gain some military fame. 4 Days in May is an intimate war film that focuses not so much on the grand epic picture of battle and war machinery, but rather on the personal dramas of people who must cope with the loss of a familiar world, new responsibilities, and above all, the question of whether and for what they should die for at the very end of the war. It is an inconspicuous film at first glance, but it is emotionally impactful, and it has left a mark on me. Overall impression: 90%.

I'll admit, I rarely watch romantic movies anymore because, in that stereotypical whirlpool, there are only very few titles worth watching. The vast majority of those genre pieces are made as if following a template and differ only slightly in doses of naivety and, when it comes to teenage matters, even in the level of tastelessness. (500) Days of Summer really stands out from this flood because it has honest craftsmanship and a few decent ideas as well as pleasant casting. But from my perspective, it's by no means a cult film. It was allegedly a huge hit at the Sundance Festival, but any major studio could have easily financed this Webb film. In fact, it is purely a mainstream affair. If stars were given for the best mainstream romance of the year, (500) Days of Summer would probably win hands down, but that's not how it works for me. It differs from the usual productions mainly by the fact that the screenwriter admitted that not every romantic love ends in marriage, but if they want to sell me these discoveries, they should turn to someone else with such banalities. After two days, I can only remember very little from the film. It's pleasant enough for one viewing, but nothing more. Overall impression: 60%.

The screenplay is unfinished. Although it is well-acted, it feels like a fragment of a feature film rather than a standalone functioning short film. The female element is also unnecessary in a script like this... Overall impression: 50%.

Each of us is intimately familiar with this situation: the smaller the expectations, the greater the enthusiasm for an otherwise average film. And vice versa - the greater the expectations, the more bitter the disappointment, even though objective reality is somewhere in the middle. I seriously expected very little from this movie, or rather "nothing." After watching it, I initially intended to give it four stars with excitement, but then I pondered it and erased a star. Rob Schneider is slightly less awkward than usual, but he still overacts and Sandler also recalls his worst acting several times (most notably in the scene where he cries on the boat, reminiscing about lost love). Nevertheless, despite all of this, it is still the best Sandler comedy with surprisingly civil performances from both main characters and a funny storyline. Overall impression: a decent 65%.