gudaulin

Tarantino's approach to his film The Hateful Eight can be compared to the intercourse of long-term partners. They know their pleasures, they know what to expect from each other, they have perfected their technique over the years, they no longer rush, and they no longer have anything to prove or fight for. At the same time, it never occurs to them to get rid of their controversial practices, nor do they feel any need to conform to general norms and demands of good manners. With the isolated environment and the limited number of characters who do not trust each other and search for a "weak link" among themselves, the film reminded me of Tarantino's debut. Here and there, the focus is mainly on exposing the characters in a borderline situation. For about 3/4 of the film, we follow eight characters trapped in a cabin in the middle of the mountains, cut off from civilization by a snowstorm. They all have evident and hidden reasons to be on guard, the three-hour duration is filled with dialogues, sometimes seemingly banal, other times punctuated with inappropriateness, vulgarities, and racist remarks. For many viewers, it may be tormenting boredom, but I have no problem with that when it comes to Tarantino. He is too experienced a filmmaker to fill the time with static shots and boredom. He is artistically inventive enough to skillfully dose tension and, from the minimum offered to him, extract the maximum. He can ultimately rely on a strong cast that plays with enthusiasm and considers it an honor to be a part of the film. The actors pay tribute to the cult director, they enjoy it, and lightly overact to highlight mostly the negative characters. The director presents the viewer with a sophisticated cat-and-mouse game but that is where the first stumbling block is hidden. It turns out that the game is somewhat purposeless, or rather does not make much sense, once the resolution is revealed. It is as if the villain tried to break into a house that nobody guards or locks in a convoluted way. The desired result could have been achieved in a much less complicated way, but then it would have been a different film for a different audience. The second problem, which, however, will not bother a large group of Tarantino fans, is the depiction of violence. Violence has always been Tarantino's trademark, and his typical screenwriting and directing feature is the use of violence as a source of humor. On the other hand, in The Hateful Eight, it is clearly evident that Tarantino has not matured. The gratuitousness of certain scenes is striking. A man who has several potential adversaries and should save every bullet that may come in handy for his survival joyfully turns a corpse's head into a bloody mess. Why? Simply because the bloodied floor and tissue remnants all around look impressive. You either deal with this or pick yourself up and move on. Despite the mentioned criticisms, I must say that it is the most likable and interesting Tarantino film since Jackie Brown. Tarantino still has something to offer, and his wild pulp aesthetics, together with the brilliant acting of the cast involved, are worth seeing. Jennifer Jason Leigh deserves a mention. She is already at an age when agents don't often contact Hollywood actresses anymore, and this was an opportunity she did not want to miss. Overall impression: 60%. I have something to add after watching Django Unchained, which I haven't fully digested yet: I have no reason to change my claim that The Hateful Eight is Tarantino's best film since Jackie Brown. However, even this insight does not change the fact that his films are burdened with mannerisms, self-centeredness, and an effort to cater to the presumed expectations of his fans. The long scene where Major Warren vividly describes the execution of a Southern officer's son simply does not deserve a fourth star for its degradation. Tarantino once again proves that he has no limits when it comes to lowering the bar of good taste.

With a few exceptions, I generally don't like these types of movies. This film is shot professionally and has a good cast, so it gives the impression of a solid genre spectacle, but one it cannot fulfill. The director seems to have no clear idea of which genre he wants to be part of. Even a top-notch crime thriller would not be ashamed of the opening scene of the assassination, and the film initially appears serious and repeatedly returns to this expression. But while the murders may look brutal, suddenly a serious scene is followed by shots from a crazy grotesque, and in my opinion, this change of tone does not work at all for the film. Genre hybrids sometimes work and they can be charming, even irresistible. Unfortunately, Jack Reacher isn't one of these in my opinion. The ending is also predictable and completely undermines the feeling of the scenes that were done well. Overall impression: 25%.

One of the many Nordic titles influenced by Trier's Dogma 95. A real environment, a handheld camera, and a believable and, in its own way, banal story devoid of any decorative and manipulative elements typical for entertaining film fiction. The film suggests the feeling of a documentary. Denis may command respect with his giant muscular physique, but he struggles in his romantic relationships and is under the influence of his dominant and manipulative mother. The years pass relentlessly, and Denis decides to escape from the seemingly comfortable environment of the "mom hotel" at all costs. He travels all the way to Thailand to find love and a new home. An encounter with his mother becomes inevitable. Teddy Bear is actually quite an ordinary film in terms of content, and I'm not sure if it would work as successfully if it didn't feature the striking presence of Kim Kold in the role of the gentle giant with a good heart, who moves us with his clumsiness. Overall impression: 60%.

This is a film that cannot deny that it was shot by a documentary filmmaker. It features the use of non-actors, authenticity of the environment, and realism of experienced situations. This film clearly does not aim to entertain, nor does it want to move you in a cheap way, shock, or demonize you. The director simply tries to send a message about what the migration flow from Africa is like and what motivates it. The dialogues may sound bookish and educational here and there, and the slow pace and documentary style will not appeal to everyone, but personally, I lean towards a small fourth star. Overall impression: 70%. It is a film that was ahead of its time and if it had received more attention from viewers, perhaps they would not have been so surprised because the flow of immigrants had already been attacking southern Europe for quite a few years, it just didn't seem to concern us back then.

Films that try to capture human life often fail to grasp and convey that which is essential, record life milestones, and capture the fateful decisions, successes, and failures of their protagonist. I think Barney's Version succeeded wonderfully thanks to the quality screenplay and above all Paul Giamatti, who managed to embody conviction and humanity in Barney. He evokes understanding where others would provoke outrage, he can move you without cheap sentiment and can make you laugh, and you tend to believe in his passion, naivety, pain, and uncertainty. It is my repeated encounter with Giamatti's character acting when I approvingly give a thumbs up. The film follows the romantic struggles of a man who has had three marriages, and two divorces, and briefly tried out the role of a widower. Amidst all the tumultuous events in his life, he is accompanied by a desire for a fateful great love and finding the ideal partner for a lifetime. The viewer meets Barney during his bohemian period and follows him to a bitter end filled with illness and loneliness. Nevertheless, it is ultimately a positive, optimistic work, which I give an overall impression of 85%.

As in the past many times, I will be a rebel in this case as well and I will give End of Watch an unflattering report card. The fashion of films shot with a shaky handheld camera in a pseudo-documentary style has never appealed to me and in many cases, it just feels plain wrong. I could count on the fingers of one hand when a similar style used in a film had a legitimate reason. While the camera on a policeman could still be clumsily justified, on the criminal's side it looks like a failed joke and it's simply absurd. The macho behavior of the policemen is not sympathetic to me, the glorification of their work is obvious, and the pathos is at times unbearable. Although the film mentions that many policemen never fire a shot outside of training, both protagonists are busier than a frontline soldier during an offensive. The result is remarkably reminiscent of a failed reality show on an American commercial station. Overall impression: 25%.

To the question of whether Dog Day is an excellent thriller, I answer no. To the question of whether it is fun, I answer yes - it definitely is for me. It is quite characteristic that in the variety of genres that appear in the header of titles on FilmBooster, the comedy or parody genre is often missing, even though the results tend to be closest to it. What Yves Boisset did is exceptionally successful for notorious B-movie makers when they are lucky and have their big day. This film is an incredible piece of pulp in terms of where the entertainment comes from, and it is worth asking whether it was the result of unwanted magic when it all got out of hand for the creators, or if it was a creative intention wherein the crew wanted to do something very crazy and it worked out. Even the opening robbery scene is messed up, both in terms of the criminals and the police force, who act like the famous Keystone Cops. The film alternates between serious moments and downright crazy scenes, and that happens at completely unexpected moments. It is a mixture of naivety, absurdity, violence, fear, and psychologically unbelievable moments. The film is cast with excellent popular actors of the period, and its advantage is that it is absolutely unpredictable. You shouldn't take it seriously and should take it as nonsense that you either like or don't like. I dare say that if such a script, with slight adjustments, were made into a serious film by the Coen brothers in the style of Fargo or No Country for Old Men, it would be fantastic. At times, I had so much fun that I seriously considered giving it five stars, but then I would feel like someone who pees on statues in the park for fun or exposes themselves. This film is simply a typical guilty pleasure for me. Overall impression: 75%.

Some choices look like sure bets. Both the author of the literary original and the director represent attractive artists in their field who can write and direct differently from the mainstream and create amazing alternative worlds. I was perhaps too excited because what I got was an animated film that wasn't as mature and provocative as I had imagined. Additionally, I had a problem of an ethical nature, so to speak. I was cheering for those who were portrayed as villains in the movie, even though they were actually just protecting their property. On the other hand, the charming Mr. Fox is nothing more than a thief who justifies his thievery by saying that he simply enjoys it. It is simply a morally depraved film. In the end, I was most pleased with the visual aspects, which are truly unique even in today's flood of films on the market. Overall impression: 65%.

It's not that there aren't titles in the romantic comedy genre that deviate from the norm and try to break the established production formula, but I dare say that it will be difficult to find a genre that has such a preserved basic scheme, in which only the names, faces, and settings alternate. Marc Lawrence is certainly not one of those who would attempt a revolution within the genre, and he relies on the tried and tested. However, I think it is a watchable film for more than just the genre fans. It's not clever, but not outright stupid either, and it has a powerful weapon in the form of Hugh Grant, for whom similar roles are a sure bet. These types of guys know how to act and do it with great charm. And Drew Barrymore is also well cast. Hugh Grant has appeared in many better films, and for Drew, this one is probably one of the most successful in her not-so-spectacular career. Pop music is naturally an easy target for irony and all kinds of jokes, but the parody of a cheesy pop romance for teenage fans in the form of a music video for the song "Pop! Goes My Heart" is flawless. For me, it gets 3 stars and a 55% overall impression.

The Nuremberg Campaign is halfway between Vávra's trilogy about the Hussite period and the peak films of František Vláčil. Its central idea is disillusionment and the vanity nurtured by years of revenge. The German knight does not achieve glory in the crusade against the Czech rebels, the Czech nobleman does not marry his beloved bride, and he is not even granted the satisfaction of revenge on the usurper. Yet the dead people around are all too real. It is evident from the set design that the Barrandov Studios truly represented a significant film center at that time, able to afford expensive productions. Overall impression: 75%.