gudaulin

When I saw the British cult film Trainspotting in the mid-90s, I was literally overwhelmed by its overview and deep exploration of the world of junkies and their survival in this world. And above all, I had a sense of authenticity throughout the film, given that the author of the book, Irvine Welsh, had firsthand knowledge of the scene, being intimately familiar with the life of the junkie community and the drug culture, and having tried drugs more than once. When I watched Requiem for a Dream, my initial impression was complete annoyance at the fact that the screenwriter was openly making a fool out of me, because only someone who may occasionally snort a line of cocaine at a glamorous celebrity party, not someone who knows the phenomenon of the drug world and junkies from personal experience, could come up with such nonsense and detachment from the subject matter. I was not familiar with Darren Aronofsky's work and did not know what to expect from him. But from the first moment, I got the feeling that his directorial style was overly exaggerated, with an obvious attempt to shock and emotionally manipulate the viewer. His music video-like style with fast cuts, slow motion, and most notably, the speeding up of the camera and overall excessive stylization reminded me of the film Spun, but that film primarily aimed to entertain and did not pretend to convey any grand message. Aronofsky's characters are only loosely sketched and, above all, they do nonsensical things. Building the main storyline on the absolute lack of heroin in the middle of New York City, which is the most lucrative drug market in the world and daily supplies a huge number of drug trafficking networks, is simply ridiculous. If the story took place in a sleepy town somewhere in the Midwest, I could easily identify with it, where one broken gang can truly drive many addicts to despair. Then there are plenty of logical errors, like the arrest of the junkie duo - since they weren't carrying drugs, they probably got busted for parking violations. :-) The main character gets sepsis from an infected and swollen vein, which is another absurdity because a junkie like him knows perfectly well where to inject the drug, and it's usually not even the arm because it's too visible - I could go on and on. When I read the reviews from film fans, I felt like I was sitting on a bus while others claimed that I was in psychiatric care. Well, maybe they are right... Overall impression: 35%. For me, this is one of the most overrated films on FilmBooster.

I wanted to watch this mainly because of Michele Laroque, whom I have fixed as Daniel Auteuil's partner alias Pignon from the successful comedy The Closet, and I consider her a quality actress with typical French charm and great comedic talent. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that it wasn't a French film, but an American production, so in this variation on a romantic comedy about the emotional closeness of two seemingly incompatible opponents that has been done a thousand times, I noticeably missed the charm of French conversational comedies and relationship films. If something really drags down this film, it's the screenplay, which is neutered and mainstream cowardly, and simply mediocre. If I were to compare it to Green Card, which I recently reviewed, then I would say that Matthew Modine doesn't have even half of Gerard Depardieu's charisma, and although Michele Laroque easily surpasses Andie MacDowell as a character actress, here she doesn't have much to do and the script's qualities are really a lot worse in this film. So, if I gave Green Card 3 stars, here I necessarily have to give less. Moreover, I cannot forgive the fact that Michele Laroque was 47 at the time of filming and, in all honesty, she doesn't look like a woman who is about to enter marriage for the first time and considering whether to have two or three children. After all, in a drama ten years older called My Life in Pink, she played the mother of a boy on the verge of puberty... Overall impression: 40%.

Yes, David Duchovny is decent, Natascha McElhone is decent, the direction is decent, the script is within what the series wants to be, and is very well written. But in order to enjoy something like this, you have to have some connection with its characters, and I haven't had such an unpleasant feeling while watching Californication in a long time. I like imperfect characters and I can tolerate a fair amount of cynicism, vulgarity, or deviations from film characters. I enjoy movies by Guy Ritchie or The Simpsons. I really liked the series Huff, which is somewhat similar, but Californication crossed the imaginary line of acceptability and where it clearly aims to entertain, it rather evokes sadness or disgust in me. It's about people who obviously don't know how to live and will never learn. It creates an impression of a hopeless community of people who believe that life can somehow be stumbled through, who are not familiar with the word responsibility, and who have clearly never encountered real problems in their lives. As is typical for American productions, the series takes place in an environment of the upper middle class, which has no existential worries and sees the world as one long carnival. It could have been a critical exploration of modern consumer society if it weren't for the obvious aim to entertain and deliver one-liners. Californication is not as dumb as it may seem at first glance, but it is far from being as clever as many of its fans think. Its main weapon and draw for viewers is cynicism and sexism, but in such a dosage that it evokes a defensive reaction in me. Luckily, real life doesn't work like that, or maybe only at swinger parties. Californication does have something to offer, but I don't understand its world and I would probably look forward to a quarterly math exam more than a new episode of this. Overall impression: 45%.

An interesting title and concept with decent potential, which failed due to average actors and clumsy direction from its creator. If this script had fallen into the hands of Karel Kachyňa, it would probably have become a highly above-average poetic film that would evoke maximum emotions in numerous scenes. Instead, we got a film that has several dead passages, and even where it tries to be funny or sentimental, you feel that something is missing. The film depicts the adventures of a boy who suffers from excessive imagination and constantly throws his surroundings off balance with crazy ideas. However, due to the aforementioned reasons, it does not succeed as a comedy, drama, or poetically fantastical film, even though it contains a piece of each within itself. Overall impression: 45%.

The same thing applies to the sequel as to the first film, meaning that it's a relaxed, but basically unremarkable film with the difference that the originality of the original idea is missing here, so it's a classic mess that was created due to the commercial success of the first film. Overall impression: 35%.

Cocoon is an ideal film for everyone tired of the flood of negative news about natural disasters, wars, crime, and human suffering. It is actually one of the few movies where evil is practically absent; it is a pleasant film with a positive tone, a decent cast, good acting performances, and professional direction. Giving it two stars is actually unfair, but I give them because the film always bored me. It lacks some more significant dramatic conflict related to the absence of the aforementioned evil. The film about a group of retirees who regain their lost youth thanks to a visit from an alien civilization is suitable for anyone who wants to spend a pleasant moment with a film that they will most likely forget in a few hours. Overall impression: 45%.

The Terminal reminds me of a sweet and heavily praised lemonade in enticing packaging, which someone opens and leaves on the table for a week. It's simply too calculated and not very functional. Of course, Tom Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones continue to be among the most likable actors of their generation, Spielberg knows his craft, and the film maintains a certain level throughout. It's predictable to the point of misery, except for the final resolution, which makes me wonder why Hanks actually endured that crazy stay at the airport. If I had been considering three stars until then, at that point I was definitively convinced to give it a lower rating. The resolution is, diplomatically speaking, naïve, but it leaves me with a far more expressive phrase on my lips. The overall impression is influenced by an inappropriately chosen level of stylization and exaggeration. The relationship between reality and the absurdity of what is seen simply jars. Furthermore, the slogging message of family values and human solidarity gradually pushes Spielberg to the very brink of kitsch. Perhaps the weakest creation that I have had the opportunity to see from his workshop... Overall impression: 45%.

This could have been really good if... Two-thirds of the runtime the film moves reliably in four-star waters and when the main character, as the narrator, comments on his unsatisfactory existence and the spirit of the small town, which is one big pit with a lot of miners with somewhat limited horizons, it's really good. The film works especially well in describing the group of outsiders that the small town society alienated from its center. But then there is a forced attempt to convey a message and criticize the cult of weapons in America. It's thematically good, but contrived and unbelievable. In the last 20 minutes, the film plummets downward, where it should have been building up. It was clear that the game with weapons and the rituals of the whole group went to hell after a few minutes, but the way the screenwriter stumbled upon it was a real disaster. The scenes where the grown-up in motion takes down a sniper at 120 meters with a pistol are just the tragicomic icing on the cake. Overall impression: 45%.

The key in this case is not the director, but the producer, who promptly also took on the lead role. Yes, John Cusack, who, when it comes to political views, stands on the left wing of the Democratic Party, so during the presidency of George W. Bush, he genuinely suffered and decided to deal with Bush's legacy through this film. The film takes shots at the defense of American interests under the guise of exporting democracy, militarism, exaggerated American patriotism, etc. When it comes to political views, mine are similar to Cusack's, and in many cases, he knows how to hit the nail on the head. In the scenes where he openly mocks the corrupt American journalists who let themselves be fooled by the whirlwind of virtual reality, or the privatization of war when private security agencies or even private armies take the initiative in Afghanistan or Iraq, who naturally don't have to be accountable to the public and whose interest is not peace, but rather prolonging the war for as long as possible, and thereby their deals, the film works well. However, for political satire to work, it should be delivered delicately, so films like Wag the Dog or Being There are the best examples. But Cusack combined satire with a somewhat clumsy parody of spy films like the Mission Impossible series, and he presented it in the style of American mainstream humor, which in the end doesn't work as well. On the one hand, it's understandable, as he put his own money into it and doesn't get paid that much, but for the effort to sell the film to the average American viewer, the overall result is tasteless and bland. In addition, director Seftel wasn't very experienced, and it doesn't seem like he has any extraordinary talent - so even though I like Cusack as an actor, my overall impression is only 45%.

Blaming Shrek the Halls for being commercial is obviously nonsense, because, for understandable reasons, not only the entire Shrek trilogy, but practically the entire production of animation studios focused on blockbuster production is commercial. The difference is rather that the original Shrek was provocative, cheeky, and cynical; it provided a well-targeted parody of traditional sweet Disney movies and simply represented something original. With Shrek the Halls, it is well-known that it relies instead on certainty and plagiarizes the entire previous series. It is saturated with traditional Christmas sentiment and represents mere routine, where there was innovation at the beginning. Overall impression: 40%.