gudaulin

Ghost Ship can serve as a reflection on how the opinions of others influence our judgment, as well as on how deceptive such judgments can be. This stands out especially when compared to the Spanish horror film Rec. In the end, I gave both films almost the same percentage rating. Rec received excellent reviews and praise that fueled my high expectations, which were ultimately not completely fulfilled, whereas Ghost Ship had very critical and venomous reviews that cooled my expectations to a minimum. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised because I really didn't expect anything from it. Ghost Ship is obviously not great art; viewers must look elsewhere for that, and it does not represent a genre peak in any way. It is just an average, routine ghost story that can boast of having a few decent scenes, such as the execution of the passengers or the gradual discovery of the interior of the abandoned wreck. However, it is also limited by mediocre directing and screenplay. Compared to Rec, it does have a more decent cast, especially someone like Gabriel Byrne, who demonstrates why he is a respected actor even in a film like this. Undoubtedly, more could have been extracted from it, and undoubtedly, there are a number of clichés in the film, but let's be honest, I found more of them in Rec. Moreover, practically no other genre, perhaps with the exception of space opera, has as many horror series sequels as A Nightmare on Elm Street, Children of the Corn, Halloween, etc., which are squeezed to absurdity. Those directors and screenwriters use clichéd scenes precisely because they know they work very well on horror audiences. All in all, it is an average, but sometimes quite entertaining B-movie: 50% overall impression.

A film I have seen before that I just watched again, and it made me happy. It is a very solid crime comedy full of black humor, ironic exaggeration, and decent dialogue. Additionally, it is very well cast, as Marcello Mastroianni is an excellent character actor with charisma and Ornella Muti shined on the screen in the 70s thanks to her charm. She is not a great actress, but in her case, it is enough to simply be in the film and the male part of the audience melts. When it comes to classic beauty, I would probably prefer Catherine Deneuve, but when it comes to sensuality, those deep eyes of Ornella Muti reliably win. The film has a functional screenplay and well-written characters. It works both as a detective story and as a comedy, and it also has an interesting point. Overall impression: 75%.

Hostile Waters introduces no significant innovations in the submarine drama subgenre. There is a clear effort to do a solid job within the limits of the television budget and to approach the real events that took place in the Atlantic in the second half of the 80s to the maximum extent possible. So it's not just pop culture entertainment, but a realistically portrayed film. To a large extent, it is similar to K-19: The Widowmaker, with the difference that the latter had a bigger budget and a more star-studded cast as a spectacle intended for movie theaters. Americans are, of course, better and always one step ahead, but the screenwriter did not refrain from inserting some critical jabs at the militaristic mindset of high-ranking officers. In terms of acting, it is a solid film, and both main actors belong not to the star category, but to the forefront of acting. Overall impression: 65%.

I do not want to have unnecessary prejudices, but in a way, this is a typical Czech commercial television product. Originally, it was supposed to be a comedy, but it lacks truly funny dialogues and gags, so it remains some kind of romance, which, however, suffers from the puppet-like characters that are very superficially drawn. A woman like Veronika played by Klára Issová does not even exist in reality, and the same applies to her criminal boyfriend Václav. But what was mentioned above is true - they are too unfunny to be caricatures, so it feels more like an embarrassment. The actors for the most part overreact, partly because the script dictates it, but also because they are poorly directed, especially Lucie Vondráčková. The only civil performance was possibly the character of the American musician... Objectively speaking, I give it about 1 and a half stars, but I have no reason to support this kind of production. Overall impression: 25%.

What Nolan meant for comic book adaptations and Batman stories, J. J. Abrams represents for the Star Trek world. He fully utilized everything that the latest visual effects technology and a large budget offer, resulting in a magnificent blockbuster filled with visually stunning scenes, grand action, and impressive special effects- in short, everything that makes a blockbuster a blockbuster. There is no doubt that this is the most visually attractive film in the Star Trek series, closely followed by the horror-themed First Contact. The effort to attract the youngest generation to the Star Trek phenomenon and gain a new group of fans is evident throughout the entire film. It focuses on pleasing today's teenagers, which is reflected in the age structure of the characters, pace, atmosphere, and plot. Unlike previous Star Treks, an attempt to bring in some humor is noticeable, both verbal and non-verbal. Especially the character of the beloved comedian Simon Pegg seems to have jumped out of the series of humorous sketches. While the form is polished, the content is not as glorious, although this film does not represent a decline in quality compared to previous Star Treks, nor does it move forward. The plot is somewhat shallow and, above all, in some respects, logic is a bit lacking. For example, the fact that the Federation's most advanced battle cruiser is occupied almost exclusively by inexperienced cadets is insufficiently justified, simply because the screenwriter and director needed it that way. However, the generosity with which the film was made compensates for everything. Every fan of the genre must appreciate the beautiful shots of spaceships and their interiors and the surface of the planet. One more thing is evident in Star Trek - it seems the creators of the film want to end the long-standing rivalry between Star Wars and Star Trek fans, as there is a clear shift to please the fans of Star Wars. The inspiration is clearly visible in some characters and scenes. Overall impression, considering that I grew up with Star Trek: 90%.

The Portrait falls within a short period between the post-war nationalization of Czechoslovak cinema and Victorious February, which meant the end of artistic freedom. In those less than three years, Czechoslovak cinema was on the rise, there was more money, and it was not necessary to desperately try to please the audience, so a few really good films were made, and The Portrait is proof of that. it is a very decent mysteriously toned horror film based on the classic story by Gogol. Despite the passage of time, it is still a fully functional film today, it has atmosphere and several excellent performances led by Vladimir Šmeral, who delivered a great study of gradual personality decay. Overall impression: 90% (considering the time of its production).

Of course, the special effects used in this film have significantly aged and the theme is downright outdated, as if from the 1920s. However, Carpenter is a master of B-movie horror and can make the most out of very little. The film has atmosphere, and there are more jumpscares and tension-inducing scenes than in contemporary horror films filled with digital effects and that have decent budgets. A job well done, overall impression: 60%.

Films focusing on the production of depression and mapping dark sides have Bergman, while animated films have the legend of Estonian animation, Priit Pärn. As usual, it is a film without words, it speaks exclusively through imagery, deliberately featuring an unattractive animation style, and it is purely a statement by the author that does not anticipate commercial success. Pärn presents the story of several people trapped in the anonymity of a big city, who clearly don't know what to do with their lives. A married couple, trying to revive their sexual life through erotic games such as bondage, while their unruly son, due to a lack of physical activities, furiously bangs his head against the wall. Another character is a thief who is eyeing their property... It is a very interesting film, both in terms of execution and content, but it will only appeal to a minority of viewers who are animation enthusiasts. Overall impression: 80%. This film is typical for its dark humor, which, however, will not surprise fans of Priit Pärn.

The slasher subgenre is not my cup of tea, but I have to admit that Wilderness is above average in its category. It has a fairly realistic script, decent direction, and a cast that is accurately suited to their roles. It can even surprise viewers who are familiar with genre rules. It's bloody, raw, violent, and adrenaline-pumping. It's not a horror, but a dark thriller. Overall impression: 60%.

An interesting sci-fi film, reflecting the anxieties and dark visions of Western society in the 70s. It was a time when the green movement emerged, criticism of the consumerist lifestyle spread, and fear of an over-technologized future emerged. Crichton's film is about how seemingly perfect technology turns against people and the robots that are meant to serve in an amusement park massacre both customers and staff. Yul Brynner plays the lead role of a rebellious gunslinger robot. I was somewhat bothered by the combination of sci-fi and western genres, but it was understandably a positive aspect for the American market. Overall impression: 55%.