gudaulin

The book by Sorokin is likely to not receive praise from Vladimir Vladimirovich and Sorokin can only hope that with the restoration of autocracy in today's Russia, things won't get that bad. It's a very impressive matter, assuming that you are open to a modern experimental concept of theater because fans of the classical bourgeois repertoire will probably suffer genuinely in some places and will generally feel a bit lost. Actors scattered among the audience, a minimalist stage that creates a sense of complete hopelessness, dirt and filth, provocation, playing to the extreme, and extravagance - in short, nothing for the casual viewer or someone who prefers safe classics or light genres. All the demons of Russian history and the current authoritarian regime come to life on the stage, unpleasantly realistically. Personally, I would have held back a bit, and it's more impressive to only suggest certain things, as a perceptive viewer will understand, rather than pushing for something so conspicuously. The poetic language of the protagonist also bothered me a bit, although I understand that the director wanted to emphasize the difference between the outwardly noble behavior and the wretched deformed nature of the antihero. Overall impression: 80%.

I don't like melodrama, but the high percentage rating and very decent cast lured me in to such an extent that I didn't even heed warnings in comments like "it really touched my heart," which I usually consider a litmus test warning against wasting my time. However, after a few minutes, I felt that all my prejudices associated with melodrama were back in full force, so please consider the resulting rating of 2 stars as a diplomatic expression of respect for the energy exerted by those involved in a project intended for a completely different audience. I didn't finish the film because if I had to muster the will to watch the entire 135-minute runtime, I would probably hate the movie at the end. Perhaps it is a finely shot slushy romance, but that changes nothing for me. Overall impression: 45%.

I've read that supposedly this is Schorm's most accessible film for the audience. I'm hesitant because I have reviewed some of his films decently in the past, and The Seventh Day, the Eighth Night even impressed me at one point. The feeling from The Return of the Prodigal Son can be compared to the experience of a blind person visiting an art gallery. The film didn't anger me, disturb me, or depress me; it rather put me to sleep - and that is somewhat surprising in the late afternoon, as I cannot blame it on exhaustion or the late hour. An existential crisis is certainly a cunning thing, but this handling of it is exhausting for me. Maybe I'm also having a viewer crisis and a period where I prefer different genres and a different style of directorial work. I actually don't know what my one star is for, as I completely missed out on Schorm's vision as a filmmaker and his burnt-out human wreckage. Overall impression: 25%.

Before watching this I once again remembered how much I disliked Věra Chytilová. Her strong feminism and dominant personality simply don't match my values and personality. Among other things, she said an interesting sentence that "a story is just bait for fools," which she used when there was no other choice because a story is the last thing she's interested in. Maybe that's one of the reasons why we didn't get along, and except for The Very Late Afternoon of a Faun and The Jester and the Queen, I really don't much care for her films. A Bag of Fleas represents, in a way, the opposite of Forman's films, which happen to fascinate me. Both fall under the label of the Czech New Wave, and yet the result is so dramatically different. Her early films remind me more than anything else of directorial exercises at a film school and mapping the possibilities of the film medium. This film about girls in a boarding school is full of banality and resembles a bunch of hens in a small courtyard. Overall impression: 35%.

Sign of the Cancer cannot be considered a crime story; a doctor's murder within the hospital premises doesn't bring an agile team of investigators to the scene who would turn everything upside down and be at the center of the action. In fact, the detective duo is pushed into the background to the point of absurdity and becomes a certain weakness in an otherwise interesting film. The crime serves the director as a starting point for exposing the characters of the institution's employees and patients, who suspect, evaluate, and judge others. Herz works very well with musical motifs and camera work, and with the help of a strong cast, creates a gloomy atmosphere. It is not as flawless and impressive as he later demonstrated in The Cremator, but in his debut, it is evident that he was heading toward the genre of psychological drama and was fascinated by the dark corners of human nature. For a debut, it was surprisingly decent, and it indicated Herz's potential for the future. It is worth mentioning how the relationship between doctor and patient has changed since then. In the 60s, doctors still had a sense of professional superiority, automatically concealing important information about the patient's health for their own "good." Overall impression: 65%.

Other People's Money is evidence that as a species, we evolve slowly and basically solve the same problems as the ancient Romans or Greeks did. This means that our greed and pettiness have definitely not changed for the better. The ability of bank managers to find loopholes in the system to exploit small savers is undoubtedly not an invention of the 21st century or the Czech path of privatization of the national economy. Mechanisms of a social system based on the accumulation of wealth work universally. However, in Western society, they have to pay more attention to public opinion. One of the most prominent French actors of the second half of the 20th century, Jean-Louis Trintignant, practically never steps out of the frame and is a reliable pillar of support for the film. It is also a pleasure to watch his co-star Serrault in the role of a banker who doesn't want to lose at any cost. I find it interesting that Serrault is primarily perceived as a comedian, even though his ambiguous or outright negative roles in dramas seem much more significant to me. The film cannot be denied its impact and atmosphere in certain passages - among all, I would choose the scenes from the personnel agency, which with its psychological pressure can corner job applicants and rob them of their dignity. Unfortunately, the strong moments are balanced out negatively by scenes that I perceive as naive and lacking a sense of reality. For example, the part when a group of top managers cannot figure out what to do with an employee who locked himself in the archive and personally try to talk him out of his actions all night. Catherine Deneuve, unlike many professional models trying their luck in the world of cinema, is not awkward in her acting, but I don't feel that she serves the film as anything more than a charming decoration. Overall impression: 65%.

I get the feeling that Wally Pfister bit off more than he could chew and couldn't transform his ambitions into a form that would allow us to speak about Transcendence as a powerful experience. The position of a director is simply more demanding than that of a cinematographer. Pfister evidently tried to shoot not only an entertaining genre film but above all a film with a deeper meaning. The result is a strange mishmash that neither entertains nor gives the impression of an artistic work. What good is it to engage a significant personality and acting chameleon Johnny Depp when the director tries to suppress him and he doesn't really fit into such a role typologically? He is simply wasted in it, and I can think of a dozen better candidates who would have been much more effective. The prevailing feeling in the end is disappointment and the impression that I have in front of me a grandiose but pathetic-looking B-movie. Overall impression: 40%.

Even with a luxurious cast and an exceptionally serious topic, Rabbit Hole didn't leave any deeper traces in me. As a parent, I confirm that I don't know of a worse situation than losing a child, and as a movie viewer, I argue that I know plenty of films made more inventively and with better scripts. Overall impression: 60%.

To be satisfied with The Double Hour, you have to tune into the right genre. It works much more as a love story and psychological drama than as a thriller, where one of the actors deals with the dilemma between emotion and reason, while the other has to choose between two partners who are suddenly available. Overall impression: 70%. Rational analysis of the situation does not always triumph over human passion and sentiment. I am adding a fourth star for the interesting new actress Xenija Rappoport.

When I hear about European coproduction with Indian cinema, I feel the scent of Bollywood in the air, wherein more lively nonsense is created with European money in exotic settings. Fortunately, this film has much more in common with French and German festival productions than with Indian dream factory productions. I take my hat off to Ritesh Batra for his feature debut. This kind of melancholic romance appealed to me, although the sobering ending of the film may not be digestible for everyone. With this film, the director brutally returns from carefree optimism to the real world, where certain knowledge and decisions simply hurt. I estimate that the film has a chance to appeal more to viewers of the age of movie heroes, who already know how life goes. Overall impression: 90%. By the way, Nimrat Kaur is truly beautiful.