gudaulin

It is said that films based on real events, especially biographical films, are boring and often made out of duty or calculation. Kinsey shows that things can be done differently. The prerequisite is a strong subject, a quality screenplay, and casting. Kinsey does not deviate from reality in anything essential, and yet it occasionally reaches the grounds of pure comedy - thus, former views on human sexuality may seem absurd to us. In the first scene, a respectable older gentleman vehemently opposes the godless novelty - zippers on trousers that allow godless youth to satisfy their desires anywhere and anytime, which will surely lead our civilization to decline in a short time. The character Kinsey opened the forbidden 13th chamber of knowledge of human sexuality and showed us who we really are, not how narrow-minded interpreters of social morals and religious activists would like to see us. Kinsey used the scientific method of exploration where ignorance, hypocrisy, prejudice, and nonsensical taboos prevailed. He did not corrupt society; he just held up a mirror to it. His work significantly influenced the social atmosphere and the rise of the sexual revolution, as well as women's emancipation. His scientific findings were in some cases adjusted, but no one was able to challenge their fundamental insights. The film is a litmus test of tolerance and open-mindedness. I noticed that some enthusiastic fans of Californication (but not only them) and its promiscuity, emotional emptiness, and shallowness suddenly have great difficulties with Kinsey's sexual openness. The film provided a great acting opportunity for both Liam Neeson and Laura Linney, which they fully utilized. Overall impression: 95%.

Over time, it appears that the peak of Oliver Stone's films, in terms of quality, fell into the 80s, when he came up with two top-notch reflections on devastating wars. Platoon is more well-known and caused a greater impact overall, as Stone filmed it as a direct participant with deep knowledge of the subject. Regardless of perspective, the Vietnam War represented a more significant event and everyone formed their own relationship with it, both in the American and global public. The Salvadoran War remained in the shadow not only of the Vietnam War but also of the concurrently ongoing Iran-Iraq War, which involved a bloody struggle for oil fields. The civil war took place at a time when it clashed with the interests of American society. It was an era of economic growth, newfound confidence, and yuppies. Salvador was a sick country, where 27 families owned the majority of wealth and all political power, and they didn't want to allow any reforms. They collaborated with military leadership to eliminate the opposition or drive it toward illegality. American intelligence agencies were afraid of another embarrassment like Cuba and decided to prevent the regime's downfall at any cost. A wave of brutal violence swept through the country. Stone, as an anti-war activist whose political profile was shaped by the protest-filled 70s, followed the developments with concern and wanted to make a firsthand film with a political message. However, he couldn't find any producers, so the film was made out of enthusiasm and sacrifices from the entire film crew. Despite compromises due to a limited budget, they usually filmed on the first attempt, and the movie is filled with incredible passion. Salvador is not a cheap propaganda film, and its protagonist is not a likable character, but a complex figure. An unreliable and unstable adventurer prone to alcoholism, a leftist at heart but not driven by ideals, and someone who naturally sides with the weaker party in the conflict. At the same time, Stone pays tribute to the journalistic profession at a time when journalists were willing to risk their lives and go against the tide and expectations of the public and employers to pursue the truth. Boyle's colleague dies while attempting to capture the reality of a street battle from up close. A few years later, his colleagues in the Iraq war were satisfied with the official communication from the US army, impressive shots taken by army cameramen, and computer simulations, all from the comfort of a luxury hotel. Overall impression: 95%.

Harrison Ford has an advantage over the vast majority of action performers in that he is a quality character actor. Director Phillip Noyce may never collect laurels at film festivals, but he is a decent craftsman who is occasionally capable of creating a great scene, such as the attack on an American convoy in the middle of a Latin American metropolis. The screenwriter appropriately tamed his imagination, so the story has a beginning and an end without convoluted structures. In the end, it is an average action film with a typically invincible protagonist. The genre's peaks are elsewhere, but Clear and Present Danger is a risk-free choice for a single viewing. Overall impression: 55%.

In this film, two great French actors Noiret and Rochefort got together, who are undoubtedly attractions for any passionate film fan. Moreover, the starting point of the film - dealing with an exceptionally critical family situation - promises a strong drama. Unfortunately, I did not have a great experience with this. The film keeps its viewers at a distance and does not try to engage them emotionally. You can only speculate about the motives of the crime, and if you learn from the perpetrator's mouth that he wanted to give a gift to his girlfriend by murdering the victim, it is practically impossible to identify with him or have an understanding of his attitude. It is also difficult to find understanding for any character in the film because their psychology, interactions, and motivations are inadequately depicted and justified. I don't know what the director wanted to convey to me, perhaps besides the banality that a descendant who committed a crime is still your son. However, even that can be conveyed in a disproportionately more interesting and emotionally engaging way. Overall impression: 45%.

The film cannot deny its connection to the western genre. Its story and conflict are built on the same foundation as the films about famous 19th-century gunslingers. The only difference is that the cowboys have been replaced by railway workers smelling of oil and soot, and the Native Americans and outlaws have become wanderers who want to use the railway for free travel across the endless distances of the American continent. Similar to a classic western, this film is also based on the conflict of two strong individuals and offers the romance of the beautiful American wilderness, unrestrainedness, and freedom, as well as the charm of the old industrial railway viaducts, depots, and steam locomotives. Just like a western, this film also leads the viewer astray with false mythology and non-existent rituals in the real world. The reality of tough and hardened wanderers was surely more down-to-earth, and they probably didn't care about any rules. For Ernest Borgnine, the character of the ruthless train chief was the role of a lifetime in its own way, and even the experienced and famous Lee Marvin can consider this a spectacular role in his long career. Overall impression: 80%.

I would never have believed that a film with such strong dramatic potential, favorable comments, and above all featuring the charming Natalie Portman would disappoint me to the extent that I would ultimately not even give it even an average rating. I consider the only real positive aspect to be Natalie herself, who practically never leaves the screen. For a similar dramatic role, many a TV star would do practically anything. Natalie is not only beautiful but also a talented actress, so there is nothing to criticize about her in this regard. However, the screenplay steers the film into the most banal waters of Hollywood studio mainstream with emotional manipulation, bookish dialogues, an overly smart child, and a typical happy ending. The music is seriously heart-wrenching, and unfortunately, I mean that ironically, but the film is knocked back two grades primarily because of the dialogue. Statements like "I may not have been a good husband, but I think I am a good person" are nothing compared to what the screenwriter is willing to put in his characters' mouths at key moments. The screenwriter may play with grand drama but lacks the courage for a real conflict and a significant clash. The situation of children living together with new partners of their parents often turns out much worse than what is depicted here, despite the best intentions of the adults. And one more thing bothers me. Watching American studio productions, one could easily get the impression that American society consists almost exclusively of elite lawyers, prestigious doctors, and successful entrepreneurs who consider it essential for their offspring to move from private daycare to a prestigious nursery school and from there to an exclusive private elementary school seen as preparation for Harvard. Their classmates may have a different skin color, but they must never come from a different social class, as the simple plebs could contaminate their children. Yep, even rule by meritocracy can be sickening sometimes. Overall impression: 40%.

Practically every economically developed country has experienced a smaller or larger epidemic of drug addiction, as well as a wave of reflection on the drug scene through the artistic sphere. In the conservative bourgeois environment of Germany in the 1970s, child drug addiction and prostitution were social taboos, and when two reporters attempted to publish extensive material in the form of a shocking open confession of a young prostitute, they faced harsh opposition and could not find a publisher. However, when they finally managed to publish the book, it became an incredible bestseller that influenced the social atmosphere and turned Christiane into an instant celebrity. Her literary confession ends hopefully with her departure to live with her grandmother in the countryside, away from drug-infested Berlin. However, her subsequent life was evidence of the saying that once a junkie, always a junkie, in the better case one who is currently abstaining. Christiane was an uncontrollable fireball. The creation of the film was inevitable, and fortunately, it received so much attention in its production that there was no major disappointment. The cast corresponds to the ideas I had formed about the book's characters. The film relies on the power of visuals, lacking the depiction of Christiane's thoughts and mental processes, which could have been resolved through the protagonist's inner voice. Of course, the film cannot encompass all the situations known from the book, but it accurately captures the important elements. We Children from Bahnhof Zoo is one of the most significant and tragic drug stories of the 20th century. Overall impression: 90%.

There are undisputed genre classics that I shrug off and, at best, give them an average rating. On the other hand, there are films that I find underrated. I include The Killers among them. Because of the number of reviewers on FilmBooster, it is essentially an unknown film, although it has been shown on television here several times. If I were to compile a ranking of the best noir films, The Killers would be somewhere in the second half of the top ten. The screenplay expands a short Hemingway story about a cold-blooded murder on demand into a sophisticated scam in the underworld that surfaces years later thanks to an inquisitive and tenacious insurance agent. The famous Burt Lancaster plays an unusual role as a victim, and he's not the main character in the film. Overall impression: 90%.

A professionally filmed melodrama that vividly illustrates the crazy circumstances in Stalinist Russia of the 1940s and 1950s to today's audience. Sandrine Bonnaire and Oleg Menshikov rank highly on my personal actor's scale and they definitely did not disappoint me. Despite its attractive subject matter and strong story, the film has something either excessive or lacking. Despite indisputable festival ambitions, or perhaps because of them, the result feels somewhat artificial and calculated. This is a common case with international co-productions, which involve a lot of compromises. Overall impression: 65%.

At first glance, Chomet seems to have calmed down compared to his most famous film (yes, I mean The Triplets of Belleville), giving up on his lively caricature-like drawings. He tames his creative flight to adapt a foreign substance and film a melancholic story of an aging entertainer who does not fit into the new rushed era, and dedicates his remaining energy to a poor girl, opening up to her the world of the big city from which he escaped to the countryside. The cabaret magician with a rabbit, essential props, and a supply of proven unchanging tricks is forcefully pushed off the stage by loud rock and roll and new techniques that offer greater miracles than the worn-out master. He has no home, and no future, and the present looks increasingly hopeless. Only nostalgia and memories of better times remain. The slow pace in this case does not matter because it corresponds to the chosen film aesthetics and subject. Overall impression: 80%.