gudaulin

The New Pope is a continuation and development of the image of the postmodern Vatican born from the wild visions of the master of imagination, Paolo Sorrentino, whom viewers already encountered in the previous series about the young pope. Lenny's conservative revolution will be followed by a brief interlude - the social revolution of Francis II, to be followed by the thermidor of the French revolution in the form of the installation of a compromising candidate of the papal curia - the snobbish and weak Brenox, easily corruptible, played with gusto by John Malkovich, who is typologically precise. I have been missing out on Sorrentino's visually refined but conceptually hollow snobbish films for some time now, but his deviation into television series is a delicacy for me. It is one of the few current series that can be considered truly original and thought-provoking about the nature of power and manifestations of faith in the consumer-saturated European society of the 21st century. It is also about the tradition exposed to the erosion of three sexual revolutions and the influence of mass media. In the second season, the director added decadence, sparing no images full of erotic symbolism. However, the first series already reliably deterred bigoted Catholics, so there will not be many who would be scandalized by sensual shots of nuns. Sorrentino is traditionally strong in the soundtrack and visual aspects of the work, while the narrative aspect lags behind, but that is no surprise when it comes to him. People watch Sorrentino for the atmosphere. Overall impression: 90%.

The series depicts the fates of a group of exiles who were ground down by the millstone of Stalinist terror in the early 1930s and expelled to the remote and inhospitable parts of Siberia. There, if they were lucky enough to survive the harsh beginnings without supplies or support, they would establish a new settlement and lay the foundations for the wood processing industry. The series is far from flawless. At times it is overly melodramatic, disjointed, and rushes forward wildly (the period of the patriotic war is covered in just a few minutes of narration), while at other times it slows down melancholically and indulges in contemplative images of the taiga. Many interesting characters do not get enough space, and the settled village looks too neat, like something from a recruitment brochure for new settlers. What is well done is the casting, with Chulpan Khamatova easily carrying her main role, as well as Morozov in the role of the camp's characterful leader. The bull's-eye is the disgusting portrayal of the Stalinist opportunist played by Roman Maďanov - in him, the pathology of the Soviet 1930s seems to be concentrated. I won't give it four stars, but it is still a decent piece of work and an attempt to come to terms with one of the sore spots of Soviet, or rather Russian, history. Overall impression: 65%.

This film, despite its undeniable efforts, does not come close to Friedkin's Oscar-winning original, and not only because it lacks the charismatic trio of Hackman, Rey, and Scheider. However, it can be compared to Frankenheimer's sequel from 1975. The Connection doesn't bring anything innovative to the table, but it's shot in the spirit of the famous traditions of French crime films. It offers a proven genre cocktail from the world of organized crime, corrupt cops, and determined idealists from both the legal and police ranks. Overall impression: 75%.

BBC makes an effort to avoid any suspicion of vulgarization and commercialization of the topic. Commercial stations would undoubtedly process the material in a more provocative and lascivious manner. The editor and film guide embodies a dry seriousness, and a lot of energy is spent on creating the impression of a psychological study of the phenomenon. The problem lies in the selection of the interviewed sex workers. Their personalities and motivations definitely deviate significantly, thereby not allowing for a realistic perception of how things work in the British sex industry. It is in a way fascinating, but the informational value of the film is more than questionable. Overall impression: 50%.

Todo Modo is part of a disturbing, socially critical film wave of the 70s that reacted to the prolonged political crisis in Italy, where governments changed at a frantic pace and terrorism and the threat of a coup were constant risks. The economy became suffocating, inflation reached terrifying levels, and the first half of the 70s was particularly hard-hit by oil shocks. The left, which clearly dominated in culture, had clear culprits: capitalism and the church (for several decades after the war, the Christian Democratic Party dominated Italian politics, and the church long retained significant formal and informal influence over society, the kind that is hard to imagine in secularized Europe today). Without knowledge of this context, the film's depressing dystopian mood is hardly understandable. Petri's film is exceptional in creating an oppressive atmosphere using the architecture of an underground complex, suggestive camera work, emotive organ music, and captivating performances by the present stars, led by Mastroianni and Volonté. Both of them, with their intelligence and cunning surpassing those around them, take pleasure in their intrigues and are literally one with their characters. Petri remains reserved for a long time, working with suggestions and only unsettling his characters and the audience. At that point, the film deserves five stars, but in the last third, the director wants to toughen up and with the increasing number of dead bodies and the uncovering of cards, the magic largely disappears. Nevertheless, I have no problem giving Todo Modo an overall impression of 75%, as this film is an original that significantly deviates from the usual contemporary productions.

Suchý as the author of song texts gets a good grade, but as the author of the screenplay, not so much. This filler between songs was not good even in the 60s and now sounds hopelessly naive, clumsy, and outdated. It's good as a reminder of actress Zuzana Stivínová and, of course, the faces that appeared at Semafor in the 60s. Overall impression: 45%. Considering the high rating on FilmBooster, I lean toward a lower score without hesitation.

It is naturally just a coincidence, but Michaela Pavlátová managed to finish the film and send it for distribution at the ideal time when the dramatic events of the fall of the pro-Western regime fueled by American and European money are still fresh in people's minds. The visual aspect may not be innovative but thank God for that because Czech animated films have been stagnating due to lack of funding for many years. There isn't much to argue against the story, which is based on Petra Procházková's experiences and information gathered from her contacts with Afghan women, except perhaps to note that the scene where Afghan women are running toward freedom en masse is just an illusion. Procházková encountered only a small percentage of women who have been slightly or more Westernized (and not even close to one hundred percent) and desire some Western achievements, and essentially, the vast majority of Afghan women are actually quite content in their comfortable domestic cage. Overall impression: 75%.

Sorry, Scarlett, but you also failed to bring the American remake to even a slightly competitive level compared to the original Japanese version. I wrote about the remake lacking the cyberpunk soul, and Mamoru Oshii was able to give the film both a cyberpunk appearance and philosophy. There are only a handful of films that can present the cyberpunk world with honor, and Ghost in the Shell holds an honorable place among them. I have no problem with giving it four stars, I just don't want to give it the fifth one because I always had a little problem with the artistic interpretation of manga. Overall impression: 85%.

An interesting, skillfully made attempt at a generational film, the acceptance or rejection of which largely depends on whether you are, or consider yourself to be, part of the generation that is the subject of the director's interest. Speaking of Joachim Trier, it is of course speculation on my part, but I would bet that he put a large part of himself into the character Axel. The unfortunate Axel is the character that I relate to the most in terms of age and life attitudes, and he is also the most sympathetic character. I consider his media battle with the assertive feminist to be the most entertaining and intellectually valuable moment of the film. The pleasant Renate Reinsve plays (for me) an unpleasant Julia because she is scattered and emotionally unstable, constantly searching for herself until the final credits. She represents a growing group of people who delay important life decisions for as long as possible, mainly because life on the increasingly economically suffocating but still damn rich West seems to offer (seemingly) endless opportunities and risk-free experimentation. Few people realize that this world and the life strategies that stem from it are irreversibly ending due to the ecological crisis and the unprecedentedly rapid transfer of wealth to emerging East Asia. The variety of topics that Joachim Trier presents in his film gives every viewer a chance to find "their own thing" among them. Overall impression: 75%.

"My parents left Turkey in the mid-70s and left the old world behind." Nope, they didn't leave it behind, they took it with them. A person forms their value system in the early stages of life, and the idea that an ordinary immigrant is just trembling to accept European values (which the intellectual elites interpret significantly differently from the common people on the street) is completely wrong. Cultural habits are something that is very difficult to change and overcome. If a larger number of immigrants form a diaspora, the process of integration into the new society becomes even more complicated because members of the diaspora lose interest in investing time and energy in adapting to the environment when they can live their own way. Just a small note: Honor killings are not a specialty of Islam and actually have nothing to do with religion. It is a phenomenon that occurs in conservative tribal societies that have not gone through the phase of modernization, and it also occurs among some Asian and African Christians, ultra-orthodox Jews, or Yazidis, for example. As for the film itself, it is a decent work leaning partially towards a documentary approach. The main actress is charismatic and handles her role without any issues. Overall impression: 75%.