gudaulin

I will not give this film five stars, despite my great regret, because the form somewhat lags behind the content and the first half of the film drags a bit despite its reasonable length and needlessly dissects the unflattering mundane existence of the story's protagonists. However, the second half, which takes place on television during a live talk show, is great and, in my opinion, the most accurate portrayal of the reality of a generation that experienced the fall of the communist regime and the subsequent disillusionment with the post-revolutionary situation. It experienced it quite rightly, because the actions of the elites are merely a result of the overall state of society, and changes in thinking are much harder than formal changes of the regime. The elites are no better or worse than the rest of society and they only do what those below them allow them to do. The television debate addresses whether a revolution took place in a provincial town east of Bucharest or if the locals just passively waited for the fall of power in the capital. As is known, human memory operates selectively and people tend to adjust their biography to the point where they eventually believe it themselves. Confrontation with reality, or rather with the perception of their peers, can result in a geyser of tragicomic outbursts that reveal the opportunism and adaptability of our heroes. The humor style, which revels in the awkwardness and pettiness of the film's characters, is quite different than that seen elsewhere in countries that experienced something similar. Overall impression: 85%.

For most critics, the film Brazil represents the peak of Gilliam's work, while Twelve Monkeys is considered too mainstream, where Gilliam's creative vision was hindered by strict producer oversight. The truth is that Brazil is indeed a pinnacle work in certain aspects (especially in terms of its visual design), but it is also very unbalanced, narcissistic, and difficult for most viewers to comprehend. On the other hand, Twelve Monkeys is an exceptionally balanced genre film, built upon a strong theme, an intelligent script with a highly emotive plot, and a superbly crafted tragic yet ambiguous final scene. Even a disciplined Gilliam presents his viewers with absurd ideas from his workshop (the punishment chair), Orwellian situations (scientists with gifts above Cole's tortured body), and plenty of clever shots with a sense of composition (Cole's ascent into the abandoned city with wild animals on the ledges of the buildings). The excellent cast is led by Bruce Willis, who delivered top-notch character acting without wrestling holds and punches, unlike in his other films. The crazy Brad Pitt showcased once again that he has a very impressive range as an actor, beyond just a handsome face. We also get the demonic David Morse in a small role. There are no weak performances here. For me, this is the absolute pinnacle of the sci-fi genre. Overall impression: 100%. Excellent work with the time paradox within the genre. Even the very tragic theme of a hero desperately trying to stop a catastrophe is lightened in several scenes with small sarcastic jokes.

Many classic westerns have long since fallen into oblivion, but Zinnemann's film can be considered a classic that rightfully belongs in the golden treasury of world cinema. This western transcends its genre boundaries and moves more into the realm of psychological drama. It is a study of human nature, fear, courage, and responsibility. A dangerous criminal is released from prison, and his comrades rejoice and expect the return of old orders, the rule of violence and intimidation. The "decent" citizens are afraid and some consider leaving. Only one inhabitant of the town is prepared to defend himself and tries to awaken a collective spirit of resistance in others. In the film, you will experience far more dialogue than panoramic shots of the wilderness or bloody shootouts. Some fans of westerns have a problem with this film precisely because of the absence of the usual genre clichés, but I consider it a remarkable example of film craftsmanship. High Noon is interesting in that it takes place in real time, and as you watch the moving hands on the clock, the tension escalates, and everything is permeated with a sense of inevitability. The direction is interesting in other ways as well. Zinnemann wanted the film to look like a classic newsreel at first glance, with grainy images and inferior lighting. Again, there are those who find this spoils their idea of a movie spectacle, but I have no hesitation in awarding it an overall impression of 85%, with the caveat that I am not a fan of westerns. Otherwise, I would give it a fifth star.

The film is shot decently, with exceptional care, and it can be seen that if not the director himself, then the producer was definitely counting on a festival award - after all, the subject matter is the sort where the creators claim a film award in advance. However, my 4 stars are rather meant as my appreciation of the formal qualities rather than an expression of emotional solidarity with the film. It has a strong story and theme, and yet I watched a film that didn't touch me emotionally in any way, and what's more, it didn't surprise me at all. It has exactly what one would expect, and while Hunger from the workshop of Steve McQueen, which is rated worse on FilmBooster, got under my skin and made me think about the film and come back to it in memories, in the case of 12 Years a Slave, I feel like I just ticked off having seen it. Overall impression: 70%. Sometimes the term film academism appears in film comments - I would say that it fits quite well with this film.

An interesting dark thriller that tries to mimic the noir films of the 1940s and 1950s shot in France. The director therefore chose black and white material, relying on a rawly depicted environment and a selection of actors who perfectly correspond to the viewer's idea of tough men operating beyond the law. A rough game that, if successful, leads to a rich financial reward, but it has its victims, and it must be said that its rules are harsher than in the classic entertainment of tsarist officers. 13 a stylish psych ward with depressive content and a depressive outcome. Several scenes are on the edge, and thanks to the camera and the actors, the director manages to extract the maximum from them. The script is a bit rough, and the gambling game has such twisted rules that it would probably be a big problem to find such desperate lunatics in the real world. I also can't imagine that anyone from the survivors would be willing to participate in this fun again. The film is strong in gradually revealing to the viewer and the main character what lies behind the high earnings. The positives are the atmosphere, the cinematography, and the tension. Overall impression: 80%.

Including a large number of historical events ranging from the prelude to war to the first major offensives, the bloody massacres of trench warfare, the disillusionment of ordinary soldiers, occasional visits to the Italian and Russian fronts, peace negotiations, and post-war developments into a single feature film means mastering the art of abbreviation perfectly, but above all, having the ability to capture the most important and characteristic aspects. The film manages this surprisingly well through the personal confession of a French soldier who was there from beginning to end. Based on archival footage, the film is well thought out, clear, and impressive, with a clear anti-war message. Just a small note - as much as the film tries to appear impartial, the story told from the other side of no man's land would be different. A similar divergence would also be present in the depiction of a soldier's adventures on the Russian front. Overall impression: 90%.

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.

1864 is a project that I approached with confidence. Danish television production rightly has a good reputation, churning out one international success after another, and in addition, considering the size of the country, it is capable of carrying out ambitious large-scale productions. The subject offered a journey into understanding historical events, the significance of which had so far escaped me. I like similar topics, as history has been my hobby since high school. The series is well-cast and full of familiar faces and it has an appropriate set design - so why only two stars? It is because I feel that something is wrong with the scriptwriting. At the end of the first two episodes, I found myself staring at the screen with a blank look and unable to remember what had just happened. Yet, the series offers many powerful themes. It is the story of a confident country that fell victim to self-delusion of exceptionalism and nationalist fervor, and in the end, it cost them dearly. However, if you can't connect with the characters in the series, if you can't appreciate the effort of the script to connect events from the second half of the 19th century with the present, and if you prefer fantasy elements, then you will simply not get into the series. In the end, I only appreciated the well-directed war scenes. There were quite a few of them, including truly massive ones, but the journey to get there was long and exhausting. Overall impression: 45%.

This film is a typical representative of so-called experiential cinema. It relies on perfect technical execution, grand spectacle, and the backdrop of a large studio. It is directly predestined for the big screen, where the perfect image will fully excel. The most impressive part is the first third, which is also in line with the concept of trench warfare as we know it. However, as a whole, the film definitely lacks authenticity. It is simply an adventurous mission that was created in the imagination of its creators and has nothing to do with the reality of the battles of 1917. A similar story could purely hypothetically take place at the very beginning or end of the war, but certainly not during the time when the armies were firmly confined to trenches and shelters due to the enemy's firepower. The structure of the film resembles computer games where the hero progresses and completes individual tasks. It is definitely worth seeing, even though it does not make sense to ponder the meaningfulness of the combat mission (perhaps Napoleon more than a hundred years ago could have instructed his units in a faster and more efficient way). The performances and visual aspects are the reasons why you should watch 1917. Overall impression: 75%.

I have to admit that the atmosphere of the movie, as well as the solid cast and performances, impressed me. The visual aspects of the film, the dirt, uniformity, and archaic industrial technology of an era when totalitarian states experienced their golden years, earned the most points with me. However, I have to say that even the book, considered the best novel of the 20th century, did not make as much of an impression on me as I had expected, and the film adaptation did not even come close to the quality of the book. This is because Orwell wrote his seminal work at a time when a similar vision of the triumph of totalitarian regimes, which he knew from his own experience, was immediately looming, terrifying him, and considering it as a truly possible success. But I was born into a time when the era of industrial totalitarian regimes, based on a mass concept of society, was overcome, and those regimes either long since disappeared or represented a mockery of the ideas of their founders. The inhabitants had already emptied and adapted them to their own image long ago. Orwell described systems that function and to which their supporters and enemies believe. The image that I remember from the 80s represented a long-rotted system that had long since denied the ideas of those who had invented them. Of those old dystopias of a similar nature, the intimate novel "Kallocain" by the Swedish author Karin Boye made a much greater impression on me. Even greater depression was caused by other novels about the decay of society consumed by consumerism. Orwell fights with old demons, and in reality, the threat of totalitarianism comes from elsewhere today. Modern technology already allows for greater control over human psychology and behavior than Orwell could imagine, and sometime in the middle of the century, the possibility of control will be absolute. Ideology is not necessary when you have cutting-edge technology and media power. Overall impression: 60%.