gudaulin

Whoever wants to see a big colorful and artistically ambitious film about the formation of the Irish Republic, the history of the struggle for independence, the events surrounding its creation, and the most famous moments in the history of the Irish Republican Army, should watch Neil Jordan's Michael Collins. The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a typically small production that looks like it's made for TV, and if the viewer wants to compare it with epic blockbusters, they will inevitably be disappointed. To be honest, I don't really understand its victory at prestigious film festivals because, from an artistic point of view, it is not possible to consider this film a festival peak. Its value lies in something else. I see it as a quality historically analytical film that provides today's viewer with relatively distant historical events. It is, in a way, an acted documentary filmed from the position of a protagonist who stands on left-radical positions in the historical dispute over the nature of the newly emerging Irish state. I have nothing against that, as many so-called historical films prefer an impressive story over a sober and factually presented historical truth. In the case of this film, it doesn't make sense to assess the film in terms of entertainment or artistic catharsis. However, it accurately describes the mechanism of the political crisis, guerrilla warfare for independence, and the subsequent conflict between radical supporters of violent solutions and those who are able to understand reality and negotiate compromises. For me, it deserves 3.5 stars, which I am elevating to four after a short consideration. Overall impression: 70%.

In one of the comments, the protagonist of the film, Sally, is compared to Forrest Gump, who makes short-sighted decisions and gets everything wrong. Personally, I believe that if he made bad decisions, his life would take much darker paths and would end soon. I remember the series of documentary films Forgotten Transports to..., which portrayed the fates of a handful of surviving Jews from concentration camps. Practically each of them lived a story that was worth filming and is hardly believable - if it weren't true. Movies simply aren't made about the millions who were unlucky and couldn't decide in a fraction of a second which line to join or when to raise their hand. Sally showed a great deal of presence of mind and courage, but he also had to have immense luck. I remember the story of a German Jewish immigrant from Paris, where the victorious German army entered. The first selections began, and that young man, under the motto "under the candelabrum it is darkest," boldly signed up for the SS units at the recruitment office. Unlike millions of other members of his church, he survived the war when he spent a few years in elite SS units in Norway. I have experience with Agnieszka Holland's works in that her direction will never take me to any heavenly heights, but on the other hand, she films reliably and, moreover, her greatest advantage is that she has a sense for selecting attractive material. Of course, even though the film is based on the real hero's experiences, the screenwriter could have embellished his experiences a bit to make the film's narrative more attractive. Even so, it is an exceptionally interesting work that speaks a lot about the crazy times and anti-Semitism in (not only) German society. Overall impression: 75%.

At first glance, The Class appears to be a controversial film. In reality, it is a film that presents its message so directly and unequivocally that I can hardly imagine a viewer who would not understand those two unfortunate individuals and their desperate act (to understand, of course, does not automatically mean to agree). I believe that many would willingly bring ammunition to both of them and reload the empty magazines of their arsenal after that week of hell. The Class is an unpleasant film, and undoubtedly impactful in a certain respect. However, it plays it safe to such an extent that it dulls its emotional impact. In fact, even those who themselves engaged in or continue to engage in bullying or harassment can easily agree with the condemnation of such brutal violence. In the popular sitcom The Big Bang Theory, the sympathetic Penny fondly remembers how she cleverly humiliated and tormented the class nerd in high school. The shocked society of young intellectuals subsequently recalls how their less talented classmates managed to make their lives miserable. When asked if Penny realizes that she actually committed a crime, the girl replies that everyone had a great time and enjoyed it like never before, and never since. And that's what it's all about. Many things we did in school weren't exactly fair and could make life quite unpleasant for those less popular, less successful, or weaker, and many of us somehow manage to make our colleagues' lives unpleasant with subtle bullying without even acknowledging that it is actually bullying. That's what sadistic prisoners in prison engage in, or what happens to rookies in the military. After all, it doesn't concern us at all, right... From my perspective, The Class is an average film with a strong theme. Nothing more, nothing less. Overall impression: 60%.

Dark Blue World was a film that cost Jan Svěrák a lot of effort, and it can be said that he sacrificed offers from overseas that came after winning the Oscar, and this drama was supposed to become a showcase of his work. I avoided watching this film for a long time, or maybe it avoided me because I somehow instinctively felt that it wouldn't be my cup of tea. Today, I can say that the true showcase of Svěrák's work remains The Elementary School, or alternatively the beautifully emotional Kolja, but Dark Blue World, considering how much energy and effort the director put into it and how expensive of a project it was, can be considered more of a failure. It's not a disaster, because Svěrák is too experienced and talented of a creator for that, and so many good actors were involved in his project that it is not possible to label Dark Blue World a mistake. However, I get the feeling that stars are being added to the film to a certain extent for the topic and out of a sense of obligation rather than for the actual emotions that the film evokes. Svěrák once stated that he didn't have the prerequisites for certain genres, that he would never be able to make a horror film, no matter how good of a script he had at his disposal, and that is why he could never become a director who makes films on demand. Unfortunately, he can easily include war films among those genres he has no affinity for. Dark Blue World is much more of a love story set against the backdrop of World War II than a war film. The battle scenes were not interesting to me, and if I were to compare it with its genre companions, then Riders in the Sky or Memphis Belle leave Dark Blue World far behind. The film simply doesn't work as it should. Overall impression: 60%.

The genre classification is a bit misleading because much more than a crime story, The Secret in Their Eyes is a love story set in a country with a complicated political situation and dealing with years of military dictatorship. I didn't consider giving it five stars for even a second, but I had a tough time deciding between three and four. The screenplay has something to it and several scenes have a huge emotional impact, on the other hand, the film drags quite a bit, it's too lyrical for its genre, and it needed at least bolder editing. Overall impression: 75%. Addendum: I usually deduct a star from most movies in hindsight, but in this case, I state that I hurt it the first time because as the weeks went by, I kept coming back to it in my thoughts and I retrospectively appreciated its qualities. This film is more intimate and takes the story in different directions than its North American or European competition. It is its own - Latin American - and that is its added value. Moreover, the motif of relentless revenge over time is incomparably more cultivated and impressive than the tragicomic tale from the South Korean film Oldboy.

Brighton Rock is receiving mixed comments and low ratings, which is to some extent due to the absence of characters with whom the viewer can identify and cheer for. But only to some extent, because the strangest feeling of anachronism has the biggest influence. The screenplay is strangely stuck deep in the past. The film realistically takes place in the early 1960s during the era of mods, but it feels like a movie filmed in the mid-1940s based on a screenplay that had been sitting in a drawer for a few years and portrays a society a decade older. Above all, the main character Rose with her boundless naivety does not fit into the 60s, but rather into the pre-war era. The brutality and malevolence of the main villain could have shocked audiences in the 40s, but today we are used to much more radical personalities and actions. Even the pace of the film's storytelling is different now. I'm just speculating, but it seems quite logical to me that the creators adhered too slavishly to the original film from 1947 (which I have not had the opportunity to see yet) and the book on which the film is based. We have moved on and the thinking of these characters is now too distant for us. If this had been directed by, say, Hitchcock in the 40s, it would be a respected classic in the same form, but like this, most viewers just will just shrug and move on. Personally, I can say that Rowan Joffe, as the director, earned a weak 3 stars from me, but just barely. Overall impression: 50%.

I don't consider J. Edgar to be the worst Eastwood film, but to make such a below-average spectacle from such an amazing concept and with such an amazing cast is deserving of a few slaps. And when I consider the difference between the result and the ambitions, unfortunately from my point of view, it is Eastwood's biggest directorial failure. Eastwood disappointed me as a storyteller, his direction lacks ideas, and the script is also no masterpiece. When I compare J. Edgar to Il Divo by Paolo Sorrentino, Eastwood embarrassingly fails in the field of biographical films. Maybe it could work as a TV movie, but not as a great story about a great legend of American politics and criminology and the founder of one of the most famous institutions in the USA. Overall impression: 40%.

Švankmajer's work has played a significant role in shaping my cinematic taste, and to this day I have a great fondness for it. Perhaps no other director has received as many five-star ratings and praise in reviews from me. I considered his feature films to be one of the few exceptions in the dullness and stagnation of Czech productions. This is the first case in his long filmography where I shrug my shoulders and say that the chosen form is disturbing to me and the result is simply boring in some passages. I have never before found myself looking at my watch during a Švankmajer film. I usually saw his feature films in movie theaters, and the only reason that didn't happen with this one was because it was ignored by movie theaters in southern Bohemia. The Czech master of animation can actually be glad to have a large group of loyal fans who, in this case, I believe have supported him somewhat. This is a tired film where even the visual aspects do not hide the meager budget. Overall impression: 55%.

Among film fans, it is a well-known fact that Ben Affleck is a much better director than an actor. But he is apparently not such a good director that he realizes the limits of his acting skills and adjusts the casting of the main character accordingly. That is unfortunate. What Ben Affleck builds in the director's seat, the same Ben Affleck tears down in the lead role with his bloodless performance. It's certainly not embarrassing, but it needed to be cast with a top-notch character actor. Ben Affleck's ability to create and maintain tension, his meticulousness in capturing the atmosphere of the 70s, as well as the revolutionary conditions in Iran after the fall of the Shah, still remain. In the field of political thrillers, it's not at the absolute peak, because Ben Affleck couldn't avoid a few unnecessarily melodramatic moments or getting emotional in family scenes, and the viewer's suspense is further marred by the fact that a film based on a true story has nothing to surprise you with and you simply know from the very beginning how it will end. On the other hand, it is a strong above-average film and it is a joy to watch such a well-executed screenplay. Overall impression: 75%.

The formation of this documentary game, dictated by life itself, was influenced by chance. The talkative married couple decided to show the world the power of their wealth and status by building the most expensive family home in the United States. This decision came shortly before the collapse of the economy and the subsequent downfall of the previously unshakable empire of a real estate magnate. It was supposed to be a documentary about a triumphant success, about the creation of a modern-day Versailles as a symbol of power for modern billionaires. However, the director took advantage of the unique opportunity provided by the change in the social position of the observed family and captured the inevitable economic decline of multimillionaire Siegel and his family in a live broadcast. The Queen of Versailles can also be perceived as a peculiar reality show about how a millionaire family suddenly has to deal with situations they were not prepared for. After all, the remarkable openness of the lady of the house and her spouse probably stems from a desire to be visible and penetrate television screens. For me, however, The Queen of Versailles is primarily a time-lapse documentary about the inability to accept reality and adapt to a changing world. It is characteristic that the entrepreneur eventually sells the company that brings him a certain profit in order to maintain an unproductive and oversized building as a symbol of social status. The reality of the Siegel family surpasses many times over what Woody Allen expressed in his film Blue Jasmine. Overall impression: 75%.